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 sittingsJoris Bengefort
ABR, unique contribution lies in the significance of European territorial cooperation. Everybody agrees on a very positive contribution of cross-border cooperation to European integration. Interreg is about connecting people and stakeholders across borders. But we also need to finance small cross-border infrastructure and other cross-border public services, or otherwise increase the territorial cross-border approaches in other EU policies and many national ones. This is particularly evident in essential public services such as health and social care and critical infrastructure, but a special lens must be applied, a place-based cross-border one.
Both aspects are still very difficult to understand for some national authorities. This is probably another consequence of a major challenge: how to communicate the achievements of territorial cohesion beyond the usable bubbles, in particular to member states. Local and regional authorities need to have a sincere and honest exchange with the member states about national sovereignty and European integration. The national mentality prevails in really multilateral European or global matters, and this is not very useful. To face current challenges, we need a stronger Europe without complexes, and also ambitious European policies and budgets.
We have to be able to discuss with national authorities not only about cross-border public services, but also about aspects such as energy autonomy, for instance, which cannot be built state by state, or the development of new industries to avoid dependence on external factors, for example, IT components, batteries, online commerce and coaching. And the rise of digital nomadism, which opens new opportunities in cross-border areas if they are well connected and fitted. A European framework is certainly needed, but at least neighboring states should agree on basing on crucial aspects. And this also applies to other policies. To succeed in this very challenging process of integration, member states should increase their sharing of sovereignty upwards to the EU institutions and continue doing so downwards, in the decentralization process, by considering the need to rationalize cross-border governance mechanisms.
Shift in regulations towards the centralization of EU funds threatened the creation of European territories and might undermine the principle of subsidiarity, which is fundamental to European integration. It also jeopardizes the development of an effective multilevel governance. Territorial cooperation should be integrated or at least considered into most EU policies, particular those affecting mobility and public services, including health care, the labor market, infrastructure, and transport. Furthermore, in certain aspects, a specific regulation should be in place, such as the European cross-border workers' statute. A pilot action to clarify the status of workers in cross-border organizations, such as EGTS, is already under preparation.
A stronger focus should be paid to capacity building, with incentives for the exchange and implementation of good practices. In cross-border context, this should start in the early stages. Existing indirect initiatives on cross-border kindergartens, but also on vocational and dual training, could be good sources of information on the difficulties and how to overcome them in establishing cross-border education and training services. Special training for public authorities on the scope and impacts of territorial cooperation in the short, mid and long term could be very useful to better understanding opportunities, which are often missed. A specific corps, such as public accountants and controllers, could benefit from structured training to facilitate the effective implementation of simplified cost options.
Most stakeholders seem to welcome more thematic flexibility, keeping the current level of EU co-financing or increasing slightly, continuing to develop simplified cost options and a joint monitoring system. However, the growing centralization of program management should be reverted to a more decentralized one with stronger participation of the local and regional authorities. Barriers to successful cross-border projects within the EU single market still exist. There are still plenty of legal and administrative obstacles to cross-border corporations. See also our B solutions program.
A European approach is crucial, and Bridge for the EU is now a reality. It effectively implemented, this will be extremely useful to boost cross-border operation to cover public service. For instance, when it's about public resources, to design new cross-border approaches to facilitate cross-border infrastructure, exchanges, mobility, etcetera. In many places, where no coordinated regulations still exist, pose enormous obstacles, B Solutions offers a growing database of evidence. Without these obstacles, a more integrated vision, many cross-border operations would address long-standing bottlenecks, facilitate access to all services for all, and be more economically efficient.
EGTC is already successful in many aspects, but it's never spontaneous or self-fulfilled. It needs to be planted, fertilized, irrigated, and looked after to finally harvest benefits for the citizens. However, better visibility, including research to show the real impact of cross-border interventions after more than 35 years of Interac should be further promoted. The impact of growing practices with a high EU added value, such as people-to-people projects and small project funds, should also be made more visible. It's important to stress that these should be kept anchored in the regulations, including decentralized and simple management options.
The comprehensive cross-thematic and free advice to cross-border commuters is also of overriding importance. In many indirect program areas, these services have been established with cross-border structures without any additional support, challenging their sustainability. Maritime cooperation, islands, and the outermost regions also have borders, maritime ones, and external borders. This should be particularly supported due to the particular challenges and opportunities. Transnational and interregional programs may play a stronger role in this regard.
And the development of major regional strategies and the coordination with transnational approaches have, in most cases, proved fruitful. They are very good laboratories for multilevel governance, and they should not lose this focus, paying strong attention to the coordinated initiatives by the local and regional authorities. National authorities should also be more involved, not only in decision making, but also in showing their implication by committing own resources and adopting a more generous approach. Here, it's also important to highlight that stronger cooperation should be promoted with our immediate neighbors, including the United Kingdom and the Mediterranean countries. Very complex challenges such as the green and digital transition should be carefully considered, including both successful experiences as well as failures.
Could you slow down a little bit?
Joris Bengefort
Yeah. In this sense, networking, a change of experience, and benchmarking are key issues. Again, a stronger multilevel focus would be needed in cross-border regions, coordinating the European, national and subnational levels without losing their cross-border perspective. The national coordination points included in the Bridge4U regulation could play an extraordinary role here. For my own daily job, for example, it's a lot of discussions about cross-border water quality and cross-border water management.
Further synergies within the Interac family should be promoted, for instance, towards mainstreaming programs, as already highlighted. Interac, Espon and ERBIC can play a stronger role in their current facilitation of capacities and research, among other services, to continue developing some territorial cooperation. We should also continue to promote current highly available instruments such as the EGTS, combining with new tools such as Bridge4U, the cross border data hub, and other initiatives will be extremely useful for implementing a more ambitious ETC with a more ambitious cohesion policy. This only be achieved with our current strong coordination with the European Committee of the Regions and other cross-border networks within the European cross-border platform, but also with the European Commission and not only Regio and the European Parliament, not only Regio, and a better understanding of the Croatian policy by the member states.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, so much, mister Benckford, for this introduction and for clearly stating your perspective on the new MFF and the challenges that we are facing. I can reassure you, and I'm sure that you're going to hear it from our members that we share many of these concerns, and we are definitely looking forward to the interaction to come to better solutions. So that being said, I would like to give the floor to the members, starting with the representatives of political groups for three minutes each, and I would like to make an appeal for everyone to stick to the time. Mister Edeford has done it magnificently, just now, so let's follow his lead. Starting with the EPP, I see Mr. Novakov is not here as coordinator, but I don't know if there's another colleague.
No? No? Mister Belarus? No? Okay.
Then, we will move on to the S and D, Senior Rosenberg.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, mister Badenburg, for coming this morning and for presenting your view on cross-border cooperation. Of course, we agree with everything that you said. Cross border cooperation continues to be one of the most concrete achievements of the European Union, and implementation of the single European space Schengen, the single market, all extremely important, has actually administratively dissolved our borders, but there continue to be those old borders there, and they are a reality. Great differences and idiosyncrasies exist between the various regions. That's why cross-border cooperation is extremely important.
So going from the abstract and the administrative to something which involves a concrete solution as far as dealing with the borders. What we want to do is to improve the quotidian life of citizens with cross border cooperation. And that's what we here in Regis say. What we want is for the European Union to become a reality, a daily reality for citizens. And many of the various challenges can't be dealt with at the national level.
We're speaking about mobility, public services, the labor market, and issues there. You mentioned those. And then there's Interreg and the cross-border cooperation there, creating a wonderful framework. But there still are problems that have to be resolved. Now we find ourselves in a key moment, a new MFF and regulation concerning the cohesion policy.
It's also a key moment because the proposal of the commission actually puts at risk some of the European programs, the cohesion policy programs, and it kind of turns it into separate national plans, which reduces the ability of authorities of member states to be able to put together some sort of cross-border cooperation because there are great differences between national policies. So in other words, just the diametrically opposite of what we’re trying to do here. We feel that interreg and cooperation, cross border cooperation, stability is necessary. And, of course, we have to be able to foresee what the issues are. We have to have some level of predictability as well.
We need a clear regulation. And with this regulation, along with my colleague here, Arimo, what we're trying to do is we want things to be just that: stability, clear objectives, and that there's predictability in cross-border cooperation based on governance, territorial governance. This is what's at risk right now. The press the participation of local authorities, they're the ones that know what's going on locally in c two. They know what the daily problems are of citizens, and we have to be able to work with them in order to find solutions, responses to the various issues that exist.
And I won't go on more about this, but we feel that cross-border cooperation is a wonderful, beautiful example of European cooperation. We want to reinforce it. We find ourselves in a very important moment right now. And we want a regulation which is effective, and it will bring together INTEREG, the Cohesion Fronts FEDE, everything will be deployed in order to have a proper system in place, a proper regulation that will facilitate cross border cooperation. And indeed, that ought to be the target of all.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you. Thank you very much.
One from the patriots, and I don't see any colleagues from the ECR either. So I will move on to renew. Mr Mullaly will take the floor.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and thank you to mister Vennevoortz for the presentation to us this morning. You know, I think his opening statement summed up why we should be focusing with regard to cross border cooperation. You're right. Cohesion funds should be there to foster economic growth and job creation. And you're right.
Insane Interact should be connecting people with a cross-border approach. The difficulty is that the commission's proposals for the 2028, 2034 MFF are not quite providing the funding or they or indeed the vision for this type of activity. They're presented to us as a simplification. In fact, in reality, as far as I can see, there is centralization of EU funding at national level. And that means it's a hollowing out of the impact of regional and local factors, really.
And, you know, people reading this proposal have said that already in the cross-border regions where they see program managers see their own role as radically altered, and funding streams which have benefits for communities across the EU and for all intents and purposes have been withdrawn as far as they can see. Around 540 programs are to be replaced by 27 NRP plans going forward and one interreg plan, with the commission estimating a 30% reduction in administrative costs. But this isn't really half the story. It doesn't really translate at all into a proportionate reduction in the administrative workload. And, you know, there are lots of examples of what we should be doing, and how we should be following.
I will raise this point with Commissioner Pito. He comes to Ireland next week. I've said this on umpteen occasions. We cannot have just kind of, you know, words. Words are cheap funding.
The MFF must back up this proposal with the cash, with the finance for these areas, for local and regional authorities. You're quite right. They must have a meaningful exchange with the member states. We can't have the member states dictating where cohesion funds are spent, all of us. What is the point of having cross-border cooperation?
And we worked hard, chair, as you know, on this house to ensure that we would support cross border cooperation in real terms. Our colleagues in Renew, my colleague Sandro, for instance, and others worked very hard on practical measures to allow us to ensure that cross-border cooperation was not just a saying. We've passed legislation here last year and supported measures and directives that allowed, for instance, people to benefit as a result of cross-border cooperation. We passed directives which ensure that a fire service on one side of a border, on one state, can cross the border in a case of a major emergency. It's a simple measure, but it needs funding and needs support going forward.
And I'm regret that's not there at the moment. I agree, of course, what you say in terms of the need for cooperation with our immediate neighbors, perhaps those of us not in the EU anymore. The United Kingdom was the one you mentioned, and you're quite right. From an Irish MEP, I'm acutely aware of the difficulties posed by Brexit and our ongoing relationship. And I say you're quite right.
We need to sit down and have tangible relationships and fixed understandings with our partners in The UK, to ensure that we can make a practical difference on either side of the border in those situations. So as I say, chair, we have lots of fine talk from our commissioner when it comes to cross border cooperation, the importance of the regions, but it must be followed up now by specific measures with regard to giving us the MFF funding to make it make sense. Thank you very much.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Mululi. Thank you, Kiran. I think we can go to the Greens, mister Anderson.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes. Thank you so much, also for coming to our committee. It's a good opportunity, I think, especially because tomorrow, the budget committee will vote on the MFF interim report, which is a very important milestone for the European Parliament regarding the different programs and the positioning for the further MFF negotiations. And I think that your statement is quite aligned with what a lot of us are also thinking when it comes to strengthening cross border regions, especially also having in mind that in being part of a cross border region as well, the Danish German border region, my feeling clearly is that, like in Brussels, more people are fighting for a cross border perspective than in many capitals, and this will also be important to prioritize for the MFF negotiations in the next months. I think on the good side of it, we can see that especially looking into Interreg, some of the fights, both civil society, a lot of regions, but also a lot of colleagues here in the parliament had done in the past already had been a success because there will be an Interreg program in the next MFF, with maybe not enough resources, but still resources to finance projects in cross border regions.
So this is very good. On the other side, what I would like to ask a bit about is your perspective on the indirect regulation. I mean, it's still quite dependent on the national and regional plans. We can see there will be a program, an indirect program, but the regulation is more or less quite limited. And so maybe you could add some more remarks on that.
I guess you will get the floor afterwards once more. And secondly, for us, Greens, it's important not just to fight for a strong cross-border perspective in the Interact program, in the ERDF, and in the national and regional plans, but also to do that in other programs in the MFF, maybe not mainly RIGI programs, but still important programs we know also need a cross-border perspective, like, for example, the Competitiveness Fund or the Connecting Europe facility and others. What I would like to ask you is if you have some remarks on those programs and ideas for that as well. If you have, then I would love to hear them. Thank.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much, Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Rasmus. And I think that we don't have anyone from the left or do we have from ESN? No? Okay.
Then I would like to give the floor to Missus Repp, and we can just do the catch the eye together, and I will add a quick question myself afterwards.
Sabrina Repp
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you. I'd like to thank our guest. It's a joy that we have you here today, and congratulations that you've been so active and for such a long time in the Euro Region issue. This transregional cooperation is so important in order to promote a European identity.
I come from the Northeast of Germany, and there we see that with the Euro regions, there are a number of different challenges. And, of course, the cooperation over many years has been extremely important. We see what a wonderful example your region's activities have been over these last 50 years. And could you tell us a little bit about, with the expansion to the East, what sort of challenges you see there? What sort of indications do you have about what will happen?
What sort of funds will be earmarked in the MFF for trans-border cooperation in the East? The rural areas and regions that are dependent on rural regions, you made mention of those. Now I think that in this cross-border cooperation, these rural areas are extremely important. And in the MFF, we've seen that this particular perspective is missing, or rather it's not on the forefront. So I'd like to find out what your view is and what we can do in order to include these rural regions in cross-border cooperation, and how this will all be included in the MFF.
You also mentioned that with regard to these particular cross border cooperations that it is extremely important that it be implementable. So budget, but it's there. But what about implementation? It's important to have less red tape. And in the restructuring as well, we've seen that, it's very important that we include smaller communities, smaller regions as well, that they'd be able to participate as well.
So small communities, regions, rural areas, very important to provide the necessary funds so that they can forge these types of cross border cooperations. Now Interreg, you said it's extremely important. We're all in agreement. It's important. It feels that it obtained greater gravity, this program as well.
And I think we've also seen that with the various majorities that exist in the parliament as well, that the question of cross-border cooperation is under increasing pressure. And the inter egg program is one that continues to be extremely important, do you feel, and dealing with the challenges that we have? We feel that indeed it is, particularly now with climate change as well. We need financial cooperation. We need to work together on important issues.
For example, how do we overcome unemployment or how do we facilitate to create those necessary green areas as well. So this type of cooperation within Interreg, it's important for these to become increasingly important. Now how do you see the MFF in this particular perspective as well as concerns Interreg? Will there be increased resources for Interreg in order to be able to overcome these challenges in the future? Once again, within the framework of Interreg.
Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Okay, Missus Repp, and thank you, Sabrina. And a quick question from me, if I may. You mentioned the issue of cross-border kindergarten. We know for a fact that this is already causing some issues, you know, for example, in The Netherlands and in Germany because of different systems. And I was wondering if that would be something which you think the commission, for example, is a very specific problem.
Could the commission help with issuing guidance on how this could be dealt with, or do you think that it's something that could be done in the context of a bridge for EU? Thank you so much. That being said, thank you so much for your contributions. I would like to give the floor back to Mr. Bengafort for about 8 minutes, max, and then we will wrap up.
Thank you.
Joris Bengefort
Thank you, Ms. Chair, and thank you all for your contributions and also for your warm support to our cross border cooperation. Some of you were talking about the budget, and I think I can state that we are quite satisfied that the first MFF proposal already marked a similar amount for European territorial cooperation, Interact, as in the current period, actually, even a bit more. This is very good news for us because in the past, there was always a tendency to reduce the budget in the first proposal. But then we had to lobby EU institutions and member states to keep a decent level of funding for interact programs.
And this time, despite changing priorities, there's no sign of reduction in the budget. But that's also what some of you stated. On the other hand, the architecture of this particular type of cooperation program could be negatively affected if it is integrated into the national plan. So we really hope that there is enough room and also that has to be in that conversation between the local and regional authorities, for that we can also really do what is necessary in that border region. I think also the member of the island stated that very well.
So we need to have our own authority on that. Someone was also asking about that it is very important to have the small project. You called stated the point of a fire brigade who has to go over the border, and I think that's absolutely true. And, also, what I always said is that the stronger EU starts in border regions because in the small things, people, inhabitants feel that the EU is adding something to their lives. So I really hope that there will be also place for smaller projects so that we all let be the people into that border regions, ambassadors for that stronger use.
And I really agree, if someone said people of the, it seems that capitals are far away from border regions. Yes, that's true. So therefore, we are there, but also all our colleagues, other or regular, or people who are working on cross-border cooperation have kind of the duty to say every time, hello, national government, hello, European government. We are here at the border region because, and I totally agree also what the speaker from Germany said, Mr. Repp, that there is not enough attention also for rural areas in the programs.
And most of the cross border regions are in rural areas. So when you strengthen the cross-border regions, you also strengthen the rural areas. So we are working also on that and on projects on this kind of questions. I think, yeah, you said also that it was very important that smaller regions or smaller cities have access to the Interact program. I totally agree on that, but you said also that the Orregios did very good jobs in the last fifty years.
I think all the regions all over Europe are working on this to get also smaller cities and regions attached to that interact program. So I think that is also an important task to strengthen the radios. There was also a question about the bigger problems, the climate change or the lack of people who are doing their jobs. And I really think that also Inter can be a rule, and cross-border regions can be a kind of play a role in that, and also to strengthen regions, but also to solve these kind of problems, because sometimes you can use the advantages of the other part of the border just to solve these kind of problems. There was a question about the cross-border Kindergarten.
We have, I already stated, the program B Solutions, and we already put some cases on that topic. So we will say, go to that to our side, and we have a lot of cases on that topic. So we give you also some examples from Europe. There was also a question from Mr. Andersson von der Griens, that how can we introduce cross-border cooperation into other programs.
I will take it more high, and please put cross-border cooperation in every policy you made. In The Netherlands, we introduced a kind of cross-border check at several areas. Please do that because a policy that is made in one of the capitals can have a kind of can bring some problems to border regions. So please bring a border check not only on several programs, but do it in all policies. I think that it can be very helpful also to our border regions.
And then I'm within five minutes ready, Ms. Jair.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Amazing. Dutch efficiency, if I may say so. We have one more speaker, Mr. Eilmann. Also wanted to have some remarks.
Mr. Eilmann is the rapporteur for the ERDF.
Pascal Arimont
Thank you. I am the rapporteur with Mr. Sampere for the Cohesion Fund and for Interreg. In the last period, I was in charge of negotiating INTERREG on behalf of the parliament. The criteria were not changed very much, but there is less money available.
That's not good news. And the situation is similar right now. At least the European Commission has seen INTERREG as a program in itself and defined it and specified it as a specific program in that overall kind of set of programs. And now for a small region, a small country, a border region where there's cross-border activity. It's on the agenda.
And I think we were big enough to be able to deal with that. We have enough to be able to deal with that, and we have pointed out that this is something that has to be emphasized. Now, it's important. These interreg programs were on border regions where there's been cooperation between people on both sides of the borders, has been there for many years. We have to protect this.
We have to promote this. And it is this cooperation, cross-border cooperation, which is extremely important for the European Union. People know each other. People work together effectively. And for INTERAG, this is extremely important.
And I'm very glad that this Interreg program exists and this cross-border dimension, extremely important, of course. It's important to protect it, to expand it, to develop it, to add whatever is necessary with the challenges of our times to defend it as well. And these border areas are extremely good. They work very, very effectively, and I feel that these are the programs where we really do see the added value of Europe. We feel that it is more concrete there than anywhere else, I feel.
So we need legislation. The legislation on disaster management and the protection mechanism there as well, we see that, what we heard, what the other colleagues mentioned as well, is that the cross border element has to be taken into consideration. It has to be inserted into the texts that define the activities, the activities of this nature. We need this cross border cooperation. And where it's missing, that's a problem.
So is there. It makes it quite clear that we have to think in terms of cross border cooperation, and that's why we have the European Union. We have it for these types of activities, and that must be understood at the local level, at the national level as well. So once again, we'd like to thank you very much for presenting all of this and for actually being here today. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Sure, Mr. Arimond. And I would like to give the floor to a close round of speakers this morning to the European Commission, Mr. Peter Bergowitz, Director of DG Radio. You have the floor for about 5 minutes.
A bit short. Thank you.
Peter Berkowitz
Yes. Thank you very much. Well, first of all, thank you for inviting us. And just to say, we share very much the view of this committee and also the speakers about the importance of interregional cooperation and, of course, cross border, which is central, mister Ross Sempere said, to European integration. We carefully listen to stakeholders, including the AEBR, in terms of preparing the proposal.
And therefore, you have a proposal which has strong continuity in there, whether we're talking about funding, where we think we've proposed a strong budget, certainly in comparison to some other areas, and, of course, regulatory continuity in the form of a distinct regulatory framework. We also have proposed that this indirect plan, which stands separate from the national plans, can be divided into chapters, which can correspond to the existing programs. And in terms of the different strands there as well, there is very strong continuity. There is continuity in the partnership. There is continuity in terms of the management structures, as well.
And therefore, you know, we think that it is a very good starting point for our discussion for this shared view that we have about the importance of indirect. Now there are a few changes in there which are important, in particular in relation to the delivery mode and the focus on performance. There, we think that this does offer opportunities for simplification, and this is something which we are actively discussing together with the different partners and the member states involved in Interreg, but also through Interact and the other organizations which we have there. One element which I would like to highlight, and this perhaps reflects the question that the chair answered about cross border kindergartens, but goes beyond this for all types of different cross border services. This is clearly an important issue that, interreg, should not just be about money.
We also need to change the conditions that are at the borders. And therefore, one of the key ideas that we have proposed in the context of this new package of proposals is subnational reforms. That means that we should actually deal with the regulatory frameworks. And we have, of course, a bridge for EU, but we also need action by member states. And therefore, we think that there are possibilities here to address the specific issues that there are in terms of certification, recognition of qualifications, etcetera, etcetera, that can be pursued through the support of INTERIC.
So this is, I would say, one of the innovations that we have in the new regulatory framework, which we think is particularly useful. Another point that I would like to highlight, and I think this was made by a number of the members, but also by you, which is, of course, the need for the mainstream to address cross-border issues. And here, we have a new, let's say, a new focus, a new area of policy under the title of the right to say, which is very much about local services. And we think that when we identify those areas which are most affected by the challenge of ensuring good conditions, attractive services, and amenities for local citizens, that we should also focus on those areas which are on the border. So this would be something a task for the mainstream programs to do as well.
So, I think that's really what I wanted to say. And, of course, we look forward to working with the committee in the legislative procedure. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Berkowitz. And, I would like to thank again, mister Bengafort, for this open lively exchange with the members of our committee. Also, thank you to the colleagues for being here today. I think that we have shown that the Reggie Committee in the European Parliament will continue to strongly defend a robust cross-border dimension within cohesion policy and also in other programs and in the future national and regional partnership plans. And we look forward to continuing the dialogue and the exchanges with your organization.
Thank you so much again. I have to let Danx. Yeah. You. Close this point.
I will say goodbye to our guests. Be back in a sec. Thank you, colleagues. Then we're moving on to point five on the agenda, that is, establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the union programs and activities. On, we'll consider the draft opinion on the commission proposal for this regulation.
It is the so-called performance regulation. I am pleased to be the rapporteur, your rapporteur on this file, and I think that this is a particularly important opinion for our Reggie Committee as it sets out in complementarity with the NRPP and the ERDF indirect regulations, the provisions governing the monitoring of performance, including milestones and targets linked to reforms on which future payments will be based. While the committee on budgets and budgetary control are responsible for this file, REGI has a key role to play as this regulation effectively constitutes the backbone of the future delivery model of cohesion policy. Now I will take this hat out and my other hat as a rapporteur. I will put it on, and I will speak about my opinion, which you have also received.
I would also like to welcome my counterpart, Mister Menesini, as rapporteur on behalf of the Committee of the Regions. Hello. Very happy to have you here. Welcome. Welcome to this committee.
Because while we're all looking at the national and regional partnership programs, the impact of this regulation on the future of cohesion policy funds and on our regions cannot be overstated. The challenges Europe is facing, that we Europeans are facing, are massive, and they are growing by the week. And rising up to them at a time of budgetary constraints demands a high level of discipline in how we spend taxpayers' money. And every euro we spend as the European Union should contribute to our common European goals. None of those goals can be met without social, territorial, and economic cohesion.
None of those priorities can be met without a strong cohesion policy. This regulation will therefore determine how we ensure that the EU budget is spent on issues that are critical to our citizens, and how effective we are in doing so. And it will also determine how regular citizens can see and feel the impact of European funds close to home. The draft opinion aims to reflect the core issues that have been raised not only by our shadow rapporteurs, but also by a large number of stakeholders who have shared their views with me and my team. The expertise provided by the Reggie secretariat has been invaluable.
And importantly, we have listened very carefully to the analysis and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors. We share the repeatedly stated opinion of the European Court of Auditors that the performance framework as presented in the commission's proposal is too fragile, relying largely on output indicators with insufficient focus on results. A more robust framework is one of the main priorities in the draft opinion. A more robust framework also means meaningfully integrating horizontal priorities such as gender mainstreaming and climate mainstreaming. Secondly, the opinion emphasizes the need to safeguard the role of local and regional authorities in implementing EU policies and managing funds.
And this is crucial to achieve genuine partnership and avoid unnecessary centralization. More importantly, it is crucial for the effectiveness of our policies. Thirdly, we aim to make simplification a guiding principle of this regulation, but not as it is in the proposal, simplification mainly for the Commission and the member states. The opinion calls instead for a simplified and user-friendly framework that reduces red tape for beneficiaries such as regions, SMEs, and civil society organizations. We believe clear, proportionate, and harmonized rules are essential to ensure legal certainty and facilitate the efficient absorption of funds across all regions.
Lastly, but crucially, parts of the commission's proposal simply go against the principle of the inter-institutional agreements on better lawmaking, and this is something which absolutely must be corrected because protecting our role as a European Parliament and for this committee is essential to ensure transparent and accountable policies which can stand public scrutiny. As your rapporteur, I cannot stress this enough. This regulation is one of the cornerstones of the whole building of the next multi-annual budget for the European Union. We must get it right, and we only have one chance to do so. I know that the shadow shares this urgency, and I look forward to your input now as well as to the next few months of fruitful collaboration.
Thank you so much. And I would like to give the floor now to the shadow rapporteurs to hear your perspectives. So first, for the EPP, madam Le Kalenic.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Chair, the Reggie Committee is all about ensuring that EU funds contribute to the sustainable development of our 242 European regions. We want to focus on the regions and on local areas, but there is a risk of the NRRP, a risk of renationalization. We also want to ensure simplification for the end beneficiaries and for intermediary organizations. We don't want to worsen the administrative burden. We also want to ensure that the special characteristics of cross-border areas and the outermost regions are taken into account.
The commission's simplification plan heads in the right direction. Yes. But it should not just be simplification for the European institutions. No. Those on the ground must benefit too, and that means the member states.
That also means the end beneficiaries, and it means the intermediary organizations who are the ones who actually roll out our policies on the ground. They need clarity when it comes to the criteria and greater information on the working methods. Let me stress four points. The multilevel governance and partnership approach. If there is a territorial approach presented, then it must be designed, implemented, overseen, and evaluated in close collaboration in real time and in an important significant way with all stakeholders.
Then there is the issue of economic competitiveness. All EU programs must be based on economic competitiveness. There must always be a contribution to European priorities that must include the strengthening of the single market, digitalization, and support for SMEs, as well as innovation, skilling, productivity, and reduction of strategic dependence. Then there's the single portal or the single gateway. The single gateway should not lead to a further administrative burden.
Similarly, if there are multiple programming approaches, that should be simplified, because they are a major operational issue for our regions as things currently stand. Final point, we will pay very close attention to the do no significant harm principle, DNSH. So I'm repeating that term in French, DNSH. The commission is establishing guidelines on this matter, but we need a strict framework for those guidelines and the writing of those guidelines. Isn't there a risk with the DNSH?
Couldn't some territories be disproportionately affected? Could many projects be excluded from the scope even if they are important and structural projects? So I think that we still have some way to go. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Then, we go to the rep shadow reporters, sorry, for S and D, Mister Christia.
Andi Cristea
Thank you, madam chair. So the draft regulation, I would say, is a positive step towards stronger monitoring and implementation of the union's strategic priorities. And in the same time, it should also help reduce administrative burden and improve transparency across the European Union. I take note positively of the introduction of the unified system for tracking budget expenditure and applying horizontal principles consistently across all member states. At the same time, from my perspective and from the perspective of my political family, three points deserve further attention.
First, the regulation should state more clearly that its purpose is not to define the eligibility of activities, but to track expenditure and the performance of financed actions. Second, stronger safeguards are needed in our perspective to ensure that earmarked spending for climate, social objectives, and gender equality is actually spent and not only planned and reported. And finally, third, I personally support the performance based approach and its focus on results for citizens, but I would favor a more granular system than the current three tier model. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, mister Christia, for your very concise exposition of your points. Then we will move, I don't see the colleague from.
She will be late.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Oh, she will be late. The colleague from the Patriots, colleague from ECR. I
don't
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
See anyone from the ECR. Colleague from the Greens or someone replacing Missus Miranda, Mister Previtzit.
Vladimir Prebilič
Well, first of all, thank you very much. Miss Miranda cannot be with us today, but I was given a few points that I would like to share with you. First of all, we appreciate you, Ricardo, and your team for the effort that you do. We believe that we are going to have a good negotiations. We also appreciate the inclusion of gender equality coefficients, but we want to see gender mainstreaming as well as climate actions also clearly in annex one.
Cohesion policy is about regions and cities, not simply member states, as was stated before me. This is why we consider it crucial to include the regional dimension also within the performance framework. The regional dimension isn't only about the region spending money. It is also about tracking how well or not they spend it. We welcome the initial inclusion by the rapporteur.
The proposed new platform for monitoring the implementation of funds, called, like, single gateway, is a very good idea. It should include publicly available tracking or founding implementation also, the regional level, not only at the national level. We're still concerned with the gender architecture of the performance framework. We have the impression that the focus is mainly on results rather than impact. Cohesion policy or policy in gender cannot be a ticking the box exercise.
We are talking about thinking about public money and people's lives. It should not be more than that. We know that so-called do no significant harm is under attack. We cannot achieve our climate objectives and implement the green agenda without a serious commitment to the principle. Just look at the current state of the world.
Europe needs to move forward in facing all the fossil fuels. The performance framework cannot help doing so. Climate protection has a central role in the performance paper framework, as well as social gender mainstreaming. Still, we see how the proposal left untouched Annex 1. The indicators currently set, under policy area one and policy area two, capture infrastructure outputs or expenditure flows, but do not do an assessment of whether such interventions effectively reduce social vulnerability or benefit population groups exposed to climate-related risks.
We are not asking about 5,000 indicators. We are asking for indicators that capture tangible, real, and socio-economic impact. To achieve that, it would be necessary to incorporate indicators of capturing the social dimension of adaptation, including the age disagreement data or metrics on the reduction of vulnerability, and this in disadvantaged communities. We believe these additions and others can provide a robust basis for evaluating whether union expenditures contribute to a fair, inclusive, and socially just climate adaptation tradition. Thank you very much.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much. And also to Missus Miranda, I don't see a colleague, Bostorf. So I yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. But the colleague from the PFE has not arrived yet. No? Okay. Then I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur from the committee of the regions to present his opinion as well.
Welcome, and thank you.
Marcelo Martelli
Thank you. Thank you very much, madam Marcelo. Let me speak in Italian, in my language. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for this invitation.
And also, the opportunity to discuss this particular report, which is extremely important, complements the work that's been done by the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur as well. And we find many things which are elements that we consider to be extremely important. It's important to have a concerted effort that the work be done together, that we work together once again, in order to present the necessities of cohesion policy to the commission. This is it, it is not something, it's something, it's, of course, technical. Extremely important political work has been done, very political, as has been mentioned, with important significant dimensions as well.
The principles, the dimensions that are included within this particular text are those which will present the results that we want for the various regions as well. So this investment has to go in the right direction. Simplification is an issue which has been used very much by the commission, and we're all in favor of simplification, transparency. And we have to pay special attention to all of this because simplification ought not be simplification, which means centralization or uniformity or essentially 27 different strategies of investment. What we need is something that goes in the right direction, once again, for the regions.
We need partnerships at the local level. And the concept of multilevel governance, subsidiarity, that partnership principle as well, is extremely important. All of this has reinforced in order to be able to move extremely more effectively at the local level, at all levels, as far as control, indicators, assessment, traceability, providing all what is necessary for civil society as well for local communities. This is important to understand that when these programs are effective and effectively monitored and evaluated, this is something that our citizens want and like involving all aspects, gender equality, environment, climate protection, all of these things. But we want to add a horizontal component to all of this.
And this is something that your committee does very effectively. Cohesion, understanding do no harm to cohesion. Why this? Because we have to have an evaluation, which, as was emphasized, will have its reverberations for Horizon, for the second pillar as well, for competitiveness, looking at the impact from the cohesion policy point of view. Very crucial in order to be able to provide to the institutions, be they local institutions or national institutions, to be able to make any corrective measures necessary following this particular type of assessment at the territorial level.
And Commissioner Seraphin, this is something that we've mentioned on numerous occasions, and we've provided our desire to be able to facilitate on this particular front to provide to European citizens, to provide all information on the impact of territorial policies of regional policies rather and cross border activities, and to make the necessary corrective measures or introduce them where that is necessary to be able to reinforce, to make more robust the policies, regional policies, in other words. So the rationalization of the number of indices, point number one, is very important, we feel. And there are a number of different issues as concerns impact and result. We have to have clarity with regard to that. Greenwashing is another issue.
If we don't have that 40% for the coefficient there for rural issues, for agricultural issues, then there are questions that will be raised. So we need, for example, other issues that involve, for example, airports and climate factors and how that fits into that. Well, of course, we all understand that with climate, we move on to another issue as well. The other question is that of the administrative burden. With the new regulation, I think we have to make it quite clear that local and regional authorities have the particular ability to implement the programs effectively without red tape.
Small communities are in a particularly difficult position. And from our point of view, we need a transition period in order to be able to implement this new regulation. We've requested that by June, we have a new deadline for introducing into the regulation whatever is necessary in order to facilitate communities, small communities. So also implementation, we have to make sure that all of those factors that serve as breaks or service function as breaks or slow down the process of implementation, that we get rid of those. Now, as far as the implementation, administrative aspects as well in regions, well, there are a number of different risks that we have to take into consideration.
The administrative problems that exist, of course, develop for the most part because of red tape, and we have to make sure that we have simple procedures to be able to implement as effectively as possible, assessing quantitatively and qualitatively as well. Taking into consideration, once again, the national component, but focusing on the regional component as well. Now, in the course of consultation, which is taking place with the managing authorities on this, all of the issues have been brought up and the various idiosyncrasies that exist within the regions, rural areas, and so on and so forth. The issues of housing, work issues, cross-border matters that involve basically all facets of human life, if you like, in the various regions. So indeed, many risks.
Important for us to underline those to understand what those risks are, in order to be able to move forward effectively. Also, I wanted to draw your attention to the other element which we have to focus on, is flexibility of those indices as well. We have some sort of one size fits all system, of course, there and facilitates things to a considerable extent, but we need flexibility, flexibility in order to meet the various issues that exist at the local level and the various idiosyncrasies that exist between the different regions as well and the different types of regions. So, flexibility, extremely important. Thank you.
Thank you all very much, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to be able to contribute to this discussion. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much for your work on your opinion. I have had the pleasure to read it, and please be reassured that we will definitely consider your suggestions for amendments for the next round. So, thank you. I would like to give the floor to members who have requested, catch the eye for about two minutes each.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Let me thank you and the rapporteur for the work on this opinion. Of course, it goes without saying I'm in favor of simplifying the budget. Simplification doesn't mean less traceability, control, or accountability. We must stress that there must be more accountability and transparency for the next MFF, and we must respect local authorities as well as subsidiarity and the rule of law. My personal experience is that we must be able to track every single euro from the EU budget until it reaches its end destination.
That, sadly, hasn't happened with every government. Sometimes there's a lack of transparency and control, so we don't know where the money actually ends up. And then the same applies to the next gen EU. You know, there's a staggering lack of transparency there. We mustn't just spend more under the MFF.
We must spend better. We need to have concrete results for the citizens. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Don't have anyone else to catch the eye, but we do have the, oh, sorry, missus Repp. I'm sorry. No worries. Thank you very much.
Sabrina Repp
Three concrete points. You know, it's always the same when we talk about a performance-based approach. We want long-term investment. We have to enable that. But not everything that is long-term produces immediate results.
If we want to enable projects under cohesion policy and at the same time we want to measure its performance, then within cohesion policy, we have to have the right instruments to do the measurement. I really want to thank you for what you've said. It's important to look at the calendar. We're hearing about a midterm review. We had the discussion on the midterm review.
There is this issue of the logic of performance. You know, what if you don't immediately have funds available? You know, you haven't spent half of the funds, and there are reasons for that. So then, how do you measure it? So it's important to talk about these kinds of things.
We're hearing, okay. Well, half of the funds haven't been used, so we'll redirect that money. So it's important to look at that as the Parliament. Then when it comes to monitoring and gathering of data, I spoke to a local councilor recently who said we are getting access to EU funds, rural development funds, but you have to provide a lot of data. And the local councilor said there was no problem providing all that data, but she wanted to know what happens to that data.
We have to look at what we're doing with this data. What is the commission actually doing with the data? How is the commission processing this data? How is this data contributing to different processes? So there's a big gap here.
Data is gathered, but then what do we actually do with the data? What are the actual effects? What are the goals that we're pursuing? And then still on the subject of cohesion funds, we perhaps need to shift our view. We don't want to pop, we don't want to support projects that are unimportant.
So we have to really ask what we're doing with the data that's gathered. We need transparency for the recipients, and then we need to use that data for our policymaking. Otherwise, what's the point of gathering the data at all?
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you for your contribution, and I would like to go back to the round of shadow rapporteurs, missus Dostelova, for the Patriots for Europe.
Klara Dostalova
Thank you very much, madam chair. I will continue in check. Yeah. I have three comments. Of course, I welcome the efforts to harmonize and simplify the entire framework for the programs that we want to lower the indicators.
We want to unify the rules. All these are positive steps. On the other hand, we have to ensure that the simplification really leads to a lower administrative burden at the level of member states, regions, final beneficiaries, not only at the side of the EU Commission. There is also the Court of Auditors, their report that mentions that. From the point of view of regional policy, this framework must be sufficiently flexible for various types of regions, territories.
So there must be room for amending the indicators. And also we have to be able to compare these indicators at the EU level. This framework should not focus only on implementation progress steps, but really we have to measure the results. The court of auditors, their report also mentions that the number of indicators is following the number of agreements, but it's not measuring the quality of life of our citizens and the results. And last but not least, this framework should not create new types of conditionality.
We need to have a transparent process. We have to improve monitoring efficiency, and we should not create a new pressure on the member state. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you for your contributions. I would like to give the floor now to the representatives of the European Commission, mister Gaetano Dadamo, DG Buds deputy head of unit. Welcome.
Gaetano D'Adamo
Thank you very much for the draft opinion and the opportunity to intervene. Thank you very much also for this discussion, which I was listening to very carefully. We fully agree on the side of the commission on the objective of simplification that, of course, should not only be for the commission itself or only for member states, but also for regions and beneficiaries overall. And there's, of course, a bit of a trade-off between how much we simplify and how much we make sure that, actually, we ensure the accountability of each euro that we spend. And that's the balance that this proposal tries to achieve.
In this respect, our belief is also that the focus of the performance regulation on outputs and results is the appropriate one also because the issue with impact indicators is that, well, impacts take longer to materialize. And so to monitor the direct effects of the EU budget, focusing on result indicators, that is more appropriate. And in addition, some result indicators actually are quasi comp or more or less comparable to impact indicators, like, for instance, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We agree on the importance also of the involvement of regional and local authorities. I would like to flag here that the application of the partnership principle and their involvement are provided for in the proposed regulation for the national and regional partnership plans, which, in our views, also have sufficient safeguards for their involvement in the preparation, implementation and evaluation, including in the monitoring committees.
The one of the strengths in our views of this proposal for what concerns the tracking of expenditure is that it relies on an approach that is based on the lessons learned of the current, NFF and, as well as on international practices. So this is in particular for the design of the tracking of expenditure for climate and environment, where the three-tier system is aligned with the OECD standards. And it was also defined, justified, and explained by the commission in the methodology that was published in 2022. In this also, say, is reflected in for what concerns the approach for the tracking of gender expenditure where the commission methodologies linked to the OECD one where you do not have coefficients to gender expenditures, but rather, say, a ranking. So in a small additional element, add also, by using this methodology on the tracking or monitoring of expenditure, we, as I said, we are also relying on the experience of the current MFF.
And we do not think that this actually leads to greenwashing because, for instance, also for the expenditure related to airport terminal capacity, well, the climate confusion is related to the fact that we actually increase energy performance through these investments. So, of course, it's not airport, you know, building airports per se. So, this is a bit in a nutshell, and sorry that I went a bit above time. But, thank you again very much for the opinion and the opportunity for this exchange.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much. I would like to give the floor also to your colleague from DG Rejio, mister Mattel Tasch, to maybe no? Okay. Then it's clear. Thank you so much for these contributions.
I would, in my role as a rapporteur, I would like to reflect a little bit on the comments. First of all, thank you for sharing your reflections on the proposal of the commission, but also indicating already some of your preliminary thoughts on the opinion that we have presented to you. I'm very happy to see that on the main principles, we seem to have a pretty clear support and majority to improve the proposal in the direction that the opinion already presents or proposes. I would like to make a couple of more detailed comments on a couple of the points that have been raised already. The single gateway must lead to a real simplification.
We absolutely share that, and we also share the idea and the principle that everything should be part of a public dashboard where we can track expenditure, but we can also track the results that we are hoping to achieve. That is something that we have tried to also strengthen in our opinion because we felt that the proposal of the commission was in going in the right direction, but it could be, it could be a bit better also from the perspective of public accountability. I fully share the comments that has been made by missus Avadia Haubert that the experience with the next generation funds is good on the macro things, but not so good on the micro things. So I think that's something that we have to learn from. On the issue of stronger safeguards or more, yeah, stronger safeguards for the, for climate and social spending, also combined eventually with more granularity, I think that this is something that will come up in the negotiations, and we are definitely open to exploring, together.
On the issue of gender mainstreaming, now you will have seen that that's quite heavy in change with regards to the commission's proposal. I appreciate that the commission is following the available expertise from OECD. I would also encourage the commission to look a bit more about the opinion of our own expertise, Centrum, namely AGE, the European agency for gender equality, and their remarks on how we are only tracking expenditure, but not really driving towards performance with this performance and tracking regulation. So I have made a very thankful use of the expertise of AGA to support my proposals as rapporteur. On the issue of measuring results on gender equality, something that I have also asked the Commission about.
And what we do see there is that the interventions that we are planning for the next few years, when you are really trying to measure results, particularly on the area of gender equality, and I can follow that logic, it's a much longer process, which is also what Missus Repp has mentioned today? So I think that we have to reach a balance between what are informed assumptions that we can make on the final result of the interventions, but also not letting us be too limited by that because if we're waiting to see the results on gender equality of interventions now, in some cases, it might be a question of a decade, and we don't have that time to measure tracking of to track and measure performance. So that's what we try to reach, to reach a balance there. And, on the issue of Annex one, and taking a closer look to the indicators, I think that's something that will come up, during the negotiations. At least, that's something that I expect looking at your input.
So I'm looking forward to that as well. Then going back to my role as chair, it's a bit difficult today. I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is 04/21/2026 at twelve in the afternoon. The vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting on 09/01/2026. And with this, I would like to close this part of the session, and we will go in camera with the coordinators meeting.
Thank you so much for this morning, and see you this afternoon.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.