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 sittings
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Extensions? Rejected. 200 and no. Sorry. Two amendments 20.
Votes in favor. Against. Abstentions? Adopted. 254 in favor, against abstentions.
I think it's rejected. Compromise amendment three in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 259 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment four in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment five in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment six in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment seven, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Compromise amendment eight, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 317?
In favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. A block vote for amendments, 319 to 332 in favor?
Against? Abstentions ? Adopted. Then we move to, thank you, amendment 32. In favor?
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment 9. In favor?
Against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 10 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 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 94 in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 95 in favor, against, abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 97 in favor? Against?
Abstentions? I think that's adopted, but I would like to check that. The vote is open. 97. The vote is closed.
Oh, it was clearly adopted. Compromise amendment 15 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 104 in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 106 in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. 107 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. 108 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
109 in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 110 in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted.
111 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Can we move on to compromise amendment 16? In favor, against, abstentions, adopted 100, sorry. Compromise amendment 17 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted, compromise amendment 18 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted, amendment 137 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 139 in favor. Against.
Abstentions, rejected. 140 in favor. Against? Abstentions ? Let's check that one.
Check for 140. The vote is open. The vote is closed. It's rejected. Yes.
Compromise amendment 19 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 20 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 152 in favor, against? Abstentions? I think it's adopted.
153 in favor? Against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment nine in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. 155 in favor, against.
Abstentions are adopted. 156 in favor? Against. Abstentions? I would like to check that one.
156 please. Yes. Vote is closed. Yes. It's clearly adopted.
158 in favor. 158 in favor. Against. Abstention ? Rejected.
157 in favor. Against? Abstentions? I think it's rejected. Can, yeah.
Can we check that one, please? 157. The vote is closed. Rejected. Oh, rejected.
159 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected. 160 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. 161 in favor. Against?
Abstentions? Yeah. I would like to check that one as well. Yeah. Not so trained in this one.
And the vote is closed. Yeah. It's also rejected. Then we move on to the final vote on the draft opinion. It is a roll call vote, so votes are open.
Vote is closed. The opinion is adopted. Congratulations. Thank you, colleagues, for joining us in the vote. We move now on to the next point on the agenda.
Yeah.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
We're going to start again or restarts. Okay, colleagues. We're moving on to point 8. Please, if you need to leave the room and have a chat, do so outside the room. Colleagues.
There are happy people in this house today, I see. Establishing the conditions for the implementation of the union support to the common agriculture policy for the period from 2028 to 2034. We're going to consider the draft opinion. Our committee is producing an opinion on this legislative proposal for which AGRI is responsible. So I would now give the floor to our rapporteur.
Stéphane Roucher
Madam chair, colleagues, a subject which has consensus is rare here today. Despite our national and partisan differences, the draft MFF 2028 to 2034 presented by the commission has led to unanimous opposition. The creation of NRPs, National and Regional Partnerships, means that there'll be a mega fund which will bring together two funds which are very different in their nature, cohesion policy and the CAP, which are the object of the present report. This development means that it could destabilize the frameworks for existing investment, and there could be a lack of visibility for project managers. Sovereignty and food security are two of the strategic aims globally.
Speaker 9
What is the message of this decision? What message does it send out? It's very negative for the farmers. It means that revising this agreement means that European agriculture is no longer a priority. It's rather a variable of adjustment.
Speaker 11
I'd like to underline that this plan for the funds would mean to would have harm the stability that is necessary for beneficiaries. It would ruin the cohesion policy, and also the COP. The human nature means that there'll be huge competition between beneficiaries of these funds. Our farmers and our regions really don't need any of that. There should be a message that is very clear going to the Commission from the Regional Affairs Committee and also to the Agri Committee.
Speaker 9
I would like in this report to put down five principles which should gain consensus. First of all, it's important to conserve a differentiation between instruments which have to do with cohesion and those which serve the CAP. And that's why all the provisions having to do with agriculture in the NRPs have been replaced in the future PAC regulation. Secondly, so that cap funds can continue, this should be made sure so that cohesion and agriculture are not lumped together. There should be coordinated policies, but different policies.
This should guarantee the coherence of public policies and the efficiency of financial instruments for those purposes. Thirdly, the amounts for the CAP at least be kept at the in euro amounts, which are the same for the present MFF going to 2027. The interest of our farmers has to do with cohesion of rural areas. They won't be living without a dynamic agriculture. We need to have continuity of investments and avoid any breach in the current projects.
The same goes for the particular instruments. Pause. This is a particular feature of the European Union, and there are sectors like livestock, bananas, sugar, etc., and hundreds of thousands of people are dependent on that. To give an example, in Reunion, it's about a quarter of the 900000 French citizens who depend on agriculture directly or indirectly. That means that it's important for economic stability, and social and local stability.
Undermining that would be a fatal blow, which would go well beyond the agricultural sector. Cancelling or doing away with Pozi, which is what the commission is proposing, which would mean the death of agriculture and layoffs for tens of thousands of our compatriots in the French overseas territories, and also in the Canary Islands and the Azores, amongst other places. And then the commission has a responsibility for the overseas regions. They're not on the European continent, but they're nonetheless French, Portuguese, or Spanish. That is to say, they are deeply European, with all the added value that they bring.
I propose a fourth principle. POSI should be maintained and also include stepped-up. Quoteluk, Reunion, Martinique, Mayotte, Canary and the Azores, amongst others. This should be appreciated with their particular features in terms of technical features, which means that we need to have dedicated instruments preserved. Finally, as for the SAP, I'm proposing that the amounts dedicated to Pozi should remain in euro terms, at least equivalent to what they are now.
Colleagues, my proposal has to do with common sense in the face of a technocratic initiative, which is absolutely misplaced. I don't understand the motivation for it, nor the logic behind it, given the realities on the ground and the needs expressed by the economic actors locally. My proposal has to do with the emails presented by the coauthors to the President of Parliament having to do with the NRPs and the regulations for the CAP. This e-mail shows that all the proposals having to do with the agricultural issues in the NRPP regulations will be integrated into CAP. And it's important to take account of the specificities of the overseas territories.
And this should logically be dealt with in the CAP regulation in a democratic spirit. And so that our committee, the regi committee, can have an effect, I will make sure as rapporteur that the maximum of amendments, constructive amendments to improve this report are built into the compromises and irrespective of the political group that they come from. I'd like to say that a shadow's meeting will take place in Strasbourg on April 28. Given all the uncertainty in regulation in terms of the economy and regulations, we need to have visibility and give all the threats given proposed by this reform. Farmers need to have a spirit of consensus and responsibility from us.
I appeal to your wisdom and your sense of general interest. And for my own part, as always, I would like to make a positive contribution through this report. Thank you very much.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Roucher. Now we're going to go to the round of shadow rapporteur starting with the EPP. I believe that mister Buddha is going to be taking the floor. The floor is yours.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague who unfortunately can't be here because of the Lufthansa strike yesterday. I'd like to thank the rapporteur on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleague. And my colleague has the following points. The CAP for 2028 means that there is a budget allocation of about €400,000,000,000, with an amount for rural development, which is about 10% of the amount dedicated for national programs.
This could increase by €73,000,000. My colleagues will put down amendments which have to do with the integration of rural areas, taking account of the fact that in the past, fast financing has been broken up into small projects without a common vision, without an ability to have social and economic development. My colleague will propose, as I will propose, at least 75% of the budget allocated to rural development, and that would be implemented through programs like LEADER, community-led local development, investments like smart villages, and programs involving the terroir regions. Development regions don't mean isolated projects. It should mean a strategy and coordination and investments which are interlinked, and which develop the local economy. We're talking about investments which support rural communities and which offer perspectives, essential services, economic development, support for SMEs, non-agricultural activities, local processing, rural tourism, digital connectivity, energy, projects which link agriculture and the local community, like short supply chains and cooperatives.
The initiatives like smart villages can transform rural areas into attractive places through connected communities, modern services, and technologically driven economic opportunities, creating an economy where remote work is more widespread. And rural areas will become.
Daniel Buda
Same context, we make sure that the CAP measures having to do with young farmers, because generational renewal doesn't just mean financial support, but also the existence of viable rural communities for this integrated rural approach. For it to succeed, in many cases, it's necessary to strengthen local administrative capacity. For this reason, my colleague will propose that within the technical assistance instruments from the Commission, we give priority to the strengthening of the administrative capacity of rural authorities, which are involved in the planning and the implementation of integrated territorial strategies. For colleagues who are also members of the Agri Committee, my colleague would like to say that the allocation dedicated to rural areas does not affect investments in farm development. Such investments are already insured through the dedicated CAP allocation for farmers.
My colleague would like to say that certain colleagues are very worried about the discontinuity of the POSE program, and I will support the reduction of minimum safeguards for the development of outermost regions. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Thank you so much. I would like to pass now the floor to Mrs. Rep for the S and D.
Sabrina Repp
Thank you for the statements from the EPP, from Mr. Budi. It's important that in the Reggie Committee, there is this AAP element, but there should also be a regional perspective, that we ensure that if we are in negotiation, it's important that we don't just make sure that the articles for the CAP are not transferred to NRPs. And there's also the regional element. We must make sure that the NRPs are a sort of umbrella regulation and the articles are transferred into the individual funds.
Speaker 16
That helps to strengthen the regional areas and a small budget for strengthening regional rural areas. We have the 10% rural targets, which was tabled by the commission, where we still don't know. It's not clear whether we can have the 10% rural targets in the negotiations, or how it will crop up. It's important that we make it very clear that if we have 10% for rural targets, if we're calling for that, it is not just half of the current ELA. And that's a problem. So we must make sure what ambition we have for rural regions in these negotiations, and that goes well beyond the 10% for the rural target.
Speaker 15
So we must make sure how much money is going into the leader in future. It also means that we make sure that member states keep the program going and we continue to invest in leader. It's also important, and this is from the perspective of the Reggie Committee, that we have legal certainty for the regions. And this also means that the regions must still be able to sit around the negotiating table with the commission. That can be via regional checks.
It can be via a legally binding code of conduct. We must go into the CAP opinion that the regions play a fundamental role in that area and that we also make sure that the multilevel governance is implemented for the regions and is relevant. There are two further important points. It's important that rural regions not just be reduced to agriculture. That wouldn't go far enough.
I'd like to point out to the rubber toe that this is an important point, that the rural areas should see in an overarching way between cohesion and agriculture. And in this opinion, it means that both sides must be kept in view. Finally, new priorities exist in the new MFF. We must make sure that there is a new reprioritization, and there's a tilt in favor of cities there, and we must make sure that the rural regions are strengthened in the new MFF. So it's important for me, in this opinion, to make it very clear that we must have equal treatment for CAP and cohesion, and that we make sure we have binding budgets.
We extend the rural targets and make sure that these investments in reach go into regional regions, that we protect LIDAR, and that we have legal certainty for the regions. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Missus Repp. I don't see any colleagues from ECR in the room. Then I would like to give the floor to the shadow for renewal, mister Mululi.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for his comments earlier. Chair, this is an incredibly important file, because it is a message from this committee to this parliament about the importance of regional development and the spending of cohesion funds. It's a difficult file in some respect for some of us because we sit on the agri committee as well, and we're waiting and watching to see what is going on with regard to the new MFF budget. But let's be clear about some of the issues that are involved. There are major issues with regard to some things that have already happened.
We know the commission has presented the creation of the NRP plans, which would merge policies with very different objectives into a single fund, and this is not acceptable to renew. I feel it's important that we address some of these issues in this file, and we will do so by resolution and amendment. And I would agree with the process that we should move some of the key agricultural articles from the NRP regulation back into the cap regulation where they belong, where this is necessary. And we will address this again, as I say, by amendment and resolution. But critically, for me, we must also focus on some of the things that are that may well fall between the two stools in many respects and cannot be allowed to do so.
For me, pillar two is an incredibly important element of the file. We just can't ignore these issues. We must maintain leader funding, as my colleague has said earlier, a fund that provides key investment in rural regions. And therefore, I will, we're looking at amendments to article eighteen and nineteen. And on Young Farmers Generational renewal, we must also be serious.
These are the people who keep rural Ireland alive. And one last point, chair, the much-mentioned and excluded Just Transition Fund. You know, I will fight to the end to ensure that the Just Transition Fund gets appropriate mention, not only in this file, but in the MFF at some stage. Today, I got a message to tell me that in my member states, the Just Transition Fund activators have been notified. You are out of work in December 2026.
You are gone. The money is gone. This is our message to the people who are working with regional communities to distribute the Just Transition Fund. Now they have been told, you are gone. There is no plan for any more money in this fund post 2027.
Is that the message we're sending to communities in the coal mining districts and the peat harvesting areas, that for all of our fine words, nobody would be left behind? Goodbye. We have left you behind. It's not good enough, Chair, and I will continue to ensure our commissioners and our commission know that. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Mululi. For the Greens, shadow is Missus Guaga, and Mister Preblicit will be taking the floor.
Vladimir Prebilič
Thank you very much, madam chairperson. So, on behalf of Christina Garda, I will give you a certain opinion when we talk about CAP. In Reggie, we discussed cohesion to sector development and the future of our communities, and the CAP is clearly part of this conversation. What we see in this proposal is a familiar problem. The commission sets a very broad framework, but key discussions on ambition, targeting, and spending are pushed to the member states through the national and regional partnership plans.
Speaker 21
This is called flexibility. In reality, it risks fragmenting the cap. Member states will define their own levels of ambition with different co-financing capacities and no strong common objectives at the EU level, not on climate, not on generational renewal, not on fairness. At a time when farmers are already under pressure, this creates an uneven playing field within the single market, creating unfair competition between member states and sectors, triggering a race to the bottom not only with the third countries, but also within the European Union. From a regi perspective, this is even more concerning.
Key territorial measures from rural development such as leader, cooperation, knowledge, and innovation are no longer safeguarded within ring-fencing and are now competing with cohesion funds for the same national envelopes. This means they risk being squeezed out, while regions are also sidelined in the programming, exactly when we need stronger territorial governance. We will work to address this. First, fair targeting of support combined with capping and degreasivity to ensure that funds benefit those who need them the most. Better redistribution towards small and medium farms, women, and clear support for our agroecological practices, organic farming, and pro recognition of the public goods farmers provide.
Second, a stronger territorial dimension. The proposed 10% for rural areas is not enough. But above all, we need clear and safeguards, especially for leader and community led development alongside investments in services, connectivity, and local economies. And the third one, generational renewal. We need binding spending, commitments, and concrete action on access to land.
Otherwise, we risk excluding future generations from farming. To conclude, we need a cap with a clear European ambition, not 27 different ones, but that puts regions at its core and truly invests in rural communities. Thank you very much.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister Prebilitit. And now we would go to the left, Missus Funcion.
Kathleen Funchion
Thanks very much, Chair. And as has been said by a number of colleagues, we know this is an incredibly important file, which will set out the future for CAPP, and also that, unfortunately, the commission's proposal falls far short of what is needed to address not only agricultural needs, but rural needs as well, and that's an important point to note. The commission's proposal puts very serious pressure on farmers. There are cuts. There's uncertainty ahead in the next long-term budget.
I want to continue to support a cap that maintains its current structure and is outside of the national regional partnership plans. What we need to see here for farmers is certainty and clarity, and the proposed changes will lead only to stress and worry for farmers. And from an Irish perspective, we all remember too well the disastrous rollout of the Acre scheme. The concerns of the European Court of Justice for potential delays in farm payments, in part due to a slow legislative process and inadequate administrative capacity, cannot be ignored and must be avoided at all costs. Cap cuts and restructuring will put a serious strain on farmers and threaten generational renewal and food security.
And I always have to caution against that word restructuring, because it's translation for cuts. From the regional development perspective here in this committee, the proposal is doubly concerning as the 10% safeguard for rural funding offers no certainty where exactly these funds will go, making it impossible for community groups, farmers, or other beneficiaries to plan ahead. This approach that doesn't protect dedicated budgets only serves to pit communities against each other to access EU funding, and is seriously concerning as regards cohesion policy. In that light, Leader has been the cornerstone of EU funding on the ground, particularly in Ireland, where the community-led approach has delivered across the country. However, we now have a proposal that has no specific budget for LEADER, and I'm glad to see other people mention LEADER and speak about it because it's a really important program.
There's no guarantee it will be available in all rural regions, and it's therefore a serious risk of being completely hollowed out, which would be absolutely devastating. Without Leader, there is no funding for rural community development, and the vague promises and overlap in safeguards are not enough to deliver for rural areas for farmers. I hope that there will be room to work with like-minded colleagues here from across the parliament to come to a conclusion that delivers fairness and certainty for farmers in rural areas, and delivers better cohesion among the various sectors affected rather than division. Thank you, chair.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Missus Funchen. Then we go to catch the eye because the colleagues from ESN are not here, starting with Missus Walsh. Miss Walsh, you have a maximum of two minutes, please.
Maria Walsh
Thank you very much, Chair, for letting me come in. I mean, just to acknowledge many of our colleagues, particularly Mister Buddha in his opening remarks. And while I know the rapporteur, Ruth, if I'm pronouncing correctly, is the leader on this, I think many of our colleagues are on the same page. The current cap proposal does not envision a minimum ring-fenced budget for the leader program or for territorial and local cooperations, and incentives, as was shared. And from a local development perspective, this raises very serious concerns.
It places rural communities in a very vulnerable position and creates uncertainty for those already delivering valuable work through the leader program who now fear future funding may not be guaranteed. And like many colleagues in this room, in the last months, I've met many leader representatives across Midlands, Northwest and Ireland where I represent, have seen firsthand the projects that they're delivering. They're tangible. They're positive. They cover social enterprise, the most rural areas, the most innovative, and they are competitive, which is our buzzword right now in Brussels.
And yet, clarity on their positions is questionable. And as an MEP who works between this committee and the agri committee, it's really difficult to continue to face them as I'm sure many colleagues also feel, and say money could be there, should be there, but we don't know how it's gonna be delivered. And its current form and architecture commission's proposal simply does not go far enough. Therefore, rather than posing a question, I'd like to make a clear request to the commission and to the rapporteur of this opinion to support the introduction of ring fence funding for the leader program in the next cap, to create that certainty for many regions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mrs. Walsh. Second on my list is Mister Paulo de Nascimento Cabral. Floor is yours.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. Let me first, and I'm seeing my good colleague Gabriela, to compliment for the biggest big win this weekend in Hungary. Thanks a lot for your work, and we are close to you, close to your heart, and thank you for this huge result for Europe. Regarding the theme that we are speaking about now, the importance of the CAP and the common agriculture policy and the farmers for the future and for the cohesion, I believe that it's quite important for all of us to take into account three or four points that was already spoken, but I want to highlight also. First, when we talk about the simplification, what we are doing, the commission is doing, is to simplify their work, but increasing the complexity for the member states and for the regions.
And this is not acceptable from our point of view because it will create an excessive burden on our farmers, on our administrations that already deal with a very complicated situation. Secondly, we have to guarantee the autonomy of the CAP. We cannot include this common agricultural policy in those national and regional partnership plans. Because when we talk nowadays on the strategic autonomy, the need for food sovereignty, we saw our dependencies from third countries with non-reliable partners that we need to guarantee that we are, again, on the right path. What we are doing right now is a proposal to renationalize the CAP, and this is also not acceptable, because the common agriculture policy is one of the founding policies of the European project.
Secondly, when we mix regional development with rural development, they are not the same. We cannot also accept that. One thing is the regional development, the other is a rural development, and the intention of merging these two areas is, of course, not acceptable from our case. And at the last point, I want to highlight that when we speak about the merging of the funding, merging of the regulations, we cannot, we have to take all of the articles from the national regional partnership plans to the regulation of the CAP. And at the same time, we are losing what is the difference, what distinguishes us.
For instance, when the commission proposed this idea, we forgot about the leader and the letter from Van der Leyen from president Van der Leyen is quite positive, but needs to be translated into documents informal.
So, Donassi Mento, if you could wrap up.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Yeah. Wrapping up, we need to be translated to the real document that we don't have right now. And, also, the same happened with that is a very important program for the outermost region that was completely erased from the proposal against what is written on the treaty of the function of the European Union. Thanks a lot.
Speaker 27
Thank you. Thank you. And now the floor goes to Mister Tullassi. Monsieur Tullassi.
Thank.
Rody Tolassy
Thank you very much, madam chair. Well, I'll be a little more succinct. I wanted to talk about Pauce and what Mr. Cabral has said. In France, and in terms of food security, how would you tackle the deletion as it were of this program? And what about the people who live in the outermost regions, overseas regions?
This is sending out a message, a negative message to them. And we have two cases. First of all, the situation is not effective, or the whole situation disintegrates and the funds disappear altogether. The European Commission has shown, however, that Posey plays a crucial role in agricultural activity and in the terms of rural subsistence and the economies of these regions. I would also add the social and economic impact, and the creation of jobs, as well as having a decent income.
It also poses for specific reasons such as compensating for other handicaps. So this is something which is going to heavily affect the production. In particular, if we are going to delete all these programs which are essential, then we have to go back to the terms of the treaty, TFU. These programs being abandoned means that there's going to be economic and social deterioration, and we are not going to allow this to happen. We have to look at the ring-fencing of the financing, and it should actually be doubled. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Merci, Monsieur Tullahi. And last on my list is Missus Gersini, also for two minutes, please. Thank you very much, madam chair. I will continue in my mother tongue, Hungarian. Thank.
Annamária Vicsek
Thank you very much. First of all, thank you Paulo. Paulo, you spoke directly to me because of the results of the Hungarian elections. Let me just confirm that this is a real source of joy for us and for much of the rest of Europe. The fact that we managed to triumph in the elections and that in the coming months and years, we won't be the poor students of Europe anymore, and we are going to use EU funds in a responsible way.
Speaker 32
Now on this particular report, let me thank the rapporteur for Hungary. I don't think I even need to underline this, but I can say that agriculture is of vital importance to us. We don't support centralization. When we are in government, what we will do is state that we want rural development. We're fighting for farmers.
Annamária Vicsek
We're fighting for young farmers and young people. We want people to be able to stay in rural areas and to live in prosperity. We want Hungarian farming to play a role in terms of competitiveness as well. And we're going to play an important role in the council on this as well. Thank you again.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mrs. Gershwin. Then, we're going now to the representatives of the European Commission. We have here Mrs. Kirsten Rosenow, from DG Agri, head of unit.
Speaker 33
Thank you. So, thanks for all the remarks and suggestions. And as a reaction to this, I would like to, first of all, recall certain elements that emerged from the debate. So particularly on aspects related to budget, the call for stability and predictability, and also on the common character of the policy and the flexibility given to the member states, so also on Pozai and rural development. So the Future Cup will continue to rely on a very strong common framework, we believe, and support robust support for investments.
Speaker 34
So core cup instruments, so this is about stability. And I was happy to hear also support for our proposals on capping and degressivity, and making sure that income support is paid to those that are most in need. So support for income, for environment and climate-friendly practices, and for investments, among others, will remain in place with a level of a new budget for this instrument that really stays predictable throughout the programming period. As you all know, we've secured €2,093,700,000,000 of funding, which is ring fenced, protected, and ready to support farmers and rural communities across the EU, but member states can, of course, even add more to this if they so choose. So, more importantly, this isn't just about the level of resources.
It's also about smarter spending. So by leveraging synergies under the national and regional partnership plans, we can link agricultural spending much better with other vital areas for investments like water management, renewable energy, and climate action, which are really key to the future of agriculture. Key for the future of agriculture is also that we have doubled our crisis reserve, so creating a 6,300,000,000 union safety net. And if disaster strikes, whether it's floods, droughts, or animal diseases, farmers can tap into an extra 10% flexibility of funds from the national plan. And we know all that this will continue to increase, so in the future period.
But we're not just reacting to a crisis, rather building resilience. And every member state, as many of you have mentioned, will have to commit at least 10% of their envelope, and that's almost around 50,000,000,000 overall to rural investment to strengthen infrastructure, service, and resilience across Europe's countryside. Part of this is general investment, and much broader. So if you look at the regulation proposal, this is not directed at farmers or farming only, but to a much broader sense of economic rural development and all actors therein, be they economic, be they from the public sector. And what is key also in terms of leader is that this is proposed to continue, you have said there is no ring fencing.
Speaker 33
There is no ring-fencing for any other of the areas either. So this, we need to balance. So we take home what you said because, obviously, having been at the origin of the creation of this program and having operated it successfully for many years, knowing the great impact it can have, it's something that we agree should absolutely be supported for the future. The best way of this, we have to see. Looking further, if they so wish, the Member States can also access up to two three of their flexibility amount as early as 2028.
Speaker 34
So that's roughly an extra €45,000,000,000. And also important to say that agriculture and the rural economy will also be able to harvest benefits from the results of projects funded under the European Competitiveness Fund and Horizon. So we have to also see this in the globality. At the same time, the Future Cup will simplify procedures and provide greater flexibility for Member States to adapt measures to national and regional circumstances. So maybe a last word on Posey. So a key change in the MFF proposal concerning the automotive region is the introduction of a dedicated chapter within the NRP plans to ensure more coordinated access to EU resources across all relevant policies.
So it's important that even if the name POSEE will no longer be used, there is a continuation of the main POSEE tools that is support to local production and specific supply arrangements. And emphasis should be given to food security and self-sufficiency in this context, while maintaining and strengthening competitiveness. So the same possibilities are offered in the area of fisheries and aquaculture under the new MFF. And with this, I've exhausted my time, and we will leave it at that. Thanks.
Very disciplined.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much for your cooperation. Thank you for your intervention. Then I would like to give the floor back to the rapporteur for a maximum of five minutes to reflect on the comments. The floor is yours.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you, colleagues. I have taken on board all your comments and your proposals. If I have to sum up, I would say European agriculture is not in a good place. It is a very bad place. So I would like to refer to my colleague, Missus Deloche, who is a farmer herself.
And she would agree that the farmers are in a very bad place themselves. The dramatic rate of suicides among our farmers, 10 a week apparently. And I would also like to focus your attention on Posei and on the outermost regions, because the deletion or the abandonment of Posey brings up the issue of how many jobs are going to be lost. And as you know, those regions are already in a difficult situation. As my colleague, Mr.
Tolasi has said he's from Guadeloupe and also my colleague from La Reunion. So La Reunion, they have climate challenges, other kinds of challenges, increased competition. So I have to say that getting rid of Poisei is death to those farmers in the outermost regions. For all these reasons, colleagues, I think we all have a duty, a need to provide a unanimous, consensual response for our farmers. And I'd like to go back to what has been said about the fact that we ourselves have promised our farmers not to abandon them.
And so altogether, we have to respect that promise and be unanimous so that we can say no to the Commission's project, to use the cohesion funds and the CAP in that way. And as I said in my initial presentation for my report, I'm very open to studying all the amendments which have been tabled, which are constructive and positive in that direction. And I will be impartial in giving each amendment the attention it is due, because this is such an important subject. And I repeat, we have an obligation to remain unanimous on this. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Rucher. Thank you to you as a rapporteur for your work as well as the shadow rapporteurs, and also the rapporteur from the lead committee and the other members for taking the floor and sharing your views, being here this afternoon. Moreover, I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is Wednesday, April 22 at 2PM, and that the vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting of July 15. Then, this being said, we can close this agenda point and move on to the ninth point on the agenda for today. That is the presentation of the accompanying expertise for the legislative proposals on the NRP funds and ERDF, interrec, and cohesion funds by the policy department for regional development, agriculture, and fisheries.
And we have an expert with us here today who will be joining us in a second. He's one of the authors of the study, the senior professor Carlos Mendez. So I will just introduce the subject briefly. Well, it's very clear to all of us here in this room that the proposals for the MFF from the European Commission significantly restructure cohesion policy into a single fund and the national regional partnership plans. As has been said here, throughout the day today, this shift raises a few questions, to put it mildly, about the balance between flexibility and predictability and what it means for the effectiveness and implementation of cohesion policy, especially for managing authorities and beneficiaries.
Additionally, the proposed changes in thematic concentrations and in regional allocations may bring both risks and added value for cohesion policy. Our regi committee has requested this study to assess the changes in flexibility, predictability, simplification, and thematic concentrations, including the modifications to INTEREC. The study puts forward policy recommendations on how to improve the legislative proposals and better achieve the cohesion objectives. This afternoon, we have the pleasure of welcoming one of the authors of the study, Professor Carlos Mendez, who will present to us an analysis of the flexibility and simplification measures proposed under the MFF proposals and their implications for cohesion policy, with a particular focus on the implementation level. Please note that the study has not been published yet.
It will be online on the website of our committee in the coming weeks. Now to introduce our expert today, professor Carlos Mendez is a director of the, yeah, director of the European Policies Research Center at the University of Strathclyde, thank you, as a specialist on the EU and regional development policy. His main research interests include EU cohesion policy, the EU budget, and regional policy in Europe. He has coauthored a monograph on EU cohesion policy, published a wide range of academic articles and policy reports, and worked on research projects and evaluation studies for European, national, and regional institutions. We're very curious about your work.
You have requested a couple of extra minutes, which I'm happy to give you. I would like you to take the floor for a maximum of fifteen, sorry, seventy minutes to be exact. Thank you so much. The floor is yours.
Carlos Mendez
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here at this really opportune moment in the legislative calendar for the reform of cohesion policy. As was just explained, this is a draft study. I believe it has been circulated, but it is early stage, and we're expecting to finalize this within the next week to ten days, at which point we'll, of course, circulate it again. But we thought it would be a good moment in the calendar to present some findings.
We've been asked to look at simplification and flexibility, in particular. We've divided the study into four blocks. Of course, simplification cannot be divorced from the performance-based delivery model. They're both closely linked. Secondly, budgetary flexibility, which touches on the issue of predictability of funding flows and the multi-annual approach.
And thirdly, thematic flexibility in terms of the concentration and earmarking, also across categories of regions. And finally, we're asked to look at interregs specifically as part of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund regulation. So just to briefly summarize, I'm sure everybody is well aware that the proposals envisage a more integrated and performance-oriented model and simpler system. This is reflected in the proposals for fewer programming documents. So a major reduction in the number of programs, 540 plus the partnership agreements into just 27 plans and an indirect plan.
Speaker 36
A single rule book as part of this NRP fund or single or mega fund regulation would replace a more fragmented set of fund- and fund-specific rules. In fact, we heard in the last session that some of these rules are, at least in the cap, being transferred to the cap specific regulation. And also the performance-based delivery model in terms of disbursements shifting towards a model based on payments linked to performance, performance in speech markets, in particular, outputs and certain reforms in terms of milestones. Simplified cost options and financing not linked to costs are another related element, but at the instrument or scheme level. So these tools aim to increase the focus on easier to administer delivery mechanisms, and in particular, by increasing the thresholds for these specific instruments to 400,000.
Carlos Mendez
So to expand the use of these instruments, which are partly linked to the performance model. But the performance payments, of course, are operating at a different level. It's the relationship between the EU and the national level. And these instruments are more about specific schemes at the national level and at beneficiary level. Some of the key conclusions and findings in terms of the gains and trade-offs.
First of all, the reforms may streamline the architecture, but there are questions about simplification on the ground in terms of managing authorities, intermediate bodies, and beneficiaries. This is still uncertain, and very likely uneven. There seems to be a consensus on this in the reactions, including from the European Court of Auditors, program authorities that we've interviewed as part of the IQNet network. But we also heard this earlier in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy file as well. In particular, simplification may be most visible at the European Union level rather than the day-to-day implementation.
Administrative burden is also likely to shift from expenditure controls, of course, reimbursements based on funding claims and expenditure on the ground to an increase in coordination and negotiation, monitoring, milestone setting, verification and audit. This is in the context of national plans, the streamlining and reorganization of the funds, which, by definition, would imply and require more central coordination. So the risk, of course, with the performance based delivery model is that it may reduce invoice level checks, but there is a potential risk of a worst of both worlds in terms of simplification, that is if the new model is layered on to the existing controls approach. So there's a risk here of layering of rules. You may have a performance-based delivery model with funds transferred based on the delivery of milestones and targets at the European and national level.
But if at the domestic level, the existing level of audit and control remains, in particular, yes, there has been a reduction in certain rules that you'd expect would lead to less order in control, such as specifying the eligibilities in the regulations. But the concern is that audit authorities would still be required to check the claims. There would still be a significant level of paperwork if existing EU rules were in place, which they will be in terms of state aid and public procurement. So there's a real risk here that there could be far more workload both to control for performance and to control for compliance at the same time. And the potential of simplified cost options and financing not linked to costs depends on the legal clarity, the existence of workable templates and also capacity and experience to do this.
We've seen in the current period that there's been a high level of variation both across funds, across countries and regions as well in the take up of these instruments. And these are some of the key factors. So the key recommendations are to really scrutinize the claims and distinguish streamlining from real administrative simplification, to seek stronger evidence that the architecture reduces burdens not just for the EU and national level, but for managing authorities, intermediate bodies and beneficiaries in practice, ensure that simplification doesn't come at the expense of partnership and multilevel governance. There are different opinions on this. Of course, the multilevel governance and partnership is still in the regulation, and the commission has stressed its commitment to this.
But there are real concerns within countries and among interest groups on whether this would still continue to function as it is. And then to treat capacity building as a really integral part of simplification. The goal of simplification is to reduce complexity and facilitate administration, but this must come at the same time with an increase in capacity building if it's to function in practice and evenly across European countries and regions. And concrete measures would be more systematic management training, skills development, peer-to-peer work, technical assistance for regions. These are activities that are going on at the moment, but need more strengthening in the future, especially as there are concerns about reduced technical assistance budgets and how they would actually function in terms of the flow linked to disbursements in the new model.
The second block is on budgetary flexibility. And here, a more flexible system is proposed, but there's arguably also more centralization, which is kind of the logic and part of the rationale for the proposal in terms of allowing funds to be diverted to new needs linked to crises and emerging priorities. And also elements of new conditionality or recalibrated and reinforced conditionality. So there's the 25% flexibility amount or reserve, compared to 15% at present. There's the midterm review, which would come earlier in 2031, be broader, and be the main reprogramming tool.
A stronger link also between the reprogramming, performance-based payments, and conditionality. So the rule of law and charter and fundamental rights, the rules would become stricter and be reinforced in this area, including penalties and the ability to reuse the funds by the commission for EU priorities as needed, more so than at present. And the new EU facility to provide the commission with a flexibility cushion for union actions for crises, shocks, and other priorities. So the key findings, of course, flexibility by definition would improve responsiveness to a crisis and the new priorities. But there's a real risk of reducing predictability for long-term investments and the multi-annual programming approach that is at the core of cohesion policy.
There are concerns the earlier midterm review could be too early for a really strong evidence base to support any adjustments, and in this sense would merely just increase the administrative burden. A stronger performance and conditionality links could of course and should in principle make flows, could risk making flows more uncertain because they would be based on certain qualitative milestones. And also increasing commission leverage over implementation, which is, of course, the goal. And then finally, the E facility does improve the speed of coordination and responsiveness to crises, but there are concerns about legal clarity, ownership and parliamentary oversight. So the Member States and the European Parliament arguably would want a stronger role in determining how this is used.
The key recommendations to seek clearer legal boundaries around these actions, in particular, to request more detail on how the union facility would work in practice in terms of the allocation criteria, the triggers, and the procedures. Also to ensure that there's scrutiny of the strategic report and the annual work program that underpins the decision-making on this EU facility. A fourth issue is to avoid overly broad commission discretion without sufficient clarity on things like definitions of what constitutes a crisis, the commission's role in terms of defining objectives, actions, and the volume of funding. And then finally, on the separate flexibility instrument for the NRP fund and the traditional cohesion policy. The key issue here is to negotiate tighter criteria and ensure stronger scrutiny over this reserve, the review, and the reallocation powers.
So concerns that the midterm review is too early, that the 25% is excessive, in particular. Okay. Moving on to the third block, which is about thematic concentration and territorial concentration. K. So here, clearly, there's the elimination of the thematic concentration rules.
So cohesion policy would be more flexible, but also changes in the earmarking obligations to the categories of regions. So there would be less differentiation in terms of the allocations to the different categories of regions, which is a major concern, not having transition and more developed region allocations clearly specified. Thematic concentration would be less rule-bound, but also there's climate and social targets at the same time. The NRPP structure and objectives and this new policy reference framework with regard to climate action and digital action plans and other agendas, which shape priorities through integrated plans rather than clearer fund-specific rules and new priorities in competitiveness, defense, and housing, would be more visible. Key concerns and trade-offs here are that the fund and RPP structure would weaken the cohesion allocation methodology.
We've already heard about risks of competition over funding, in particular, between the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy, and centralization. Removal of the thematic concentration rules clearly would enhance flexibility, and member states and many regions have actually demanded this in previous periods. But at the same time, it could also weaken some key elements of the policy, its place-based focus and strategic approach. Examples here are, of course, smart specialization strategies, territorial instruments where there is no longer an earmarking as well. We heard about CLLD, Community Led Local Development, and also the leader approach in the common agricultural policy.
So here there are concerns without clear rules for these areas, that they could be weakened. So the broader specific objectives, there's a long list close to 30 objectives in this policy reference framework, which could encourage a more sectoral and standardized approach despite the presumed formal flexibility increase. And in terms of the new EU priorities, we're asked to consider this in particular, not all new of course, and the midterm review has already increased the focus on elements of competitiveness, which has always been there, but also to security and housing. So uptake has been rather selective, uneven, and often pragmatic. The case of housing is an example where there was an expectation to double the funding, but it's been far less in the midterm review.
So in terms of recommendations, one is to seek a guaranteed minimum share of funding, first for the policy itself, secondly for the individual funds, and thirdly for categories of regions, but also more transparency in the actual allocation model, which is not at all clear. There's a general key, which is supposed to determine the allocations, but it's not clear that that is actually clearly reflecting existing territorial disparities and needs because there are certain provisions. A good example is that allocations should reflect the relative share compared to the other member states' allocations in 2020. That's not the relative share in absolute terms, but the relative share in their allocations compared to other member states. But in the less developed regions, a relative share compared to the previous period.
So there's in-built path dependence in the model, and it's not clear that it reflects current disparities. Secondly, safeguards so that there's greater national flexibility and reduced role of these different categories and regions, in particular transition regions and the more developed regions, the way funding should and the intensity of funding should increase or decrease across the categories. And to avoid excessive dispersion of resources in a sectoral approach and related to safeguarding partnership and multilevel governance beyond this regional check. Okay, the final element is on Interreg. I think the key changes are well known.
There's a broad continuity and more performance-oriented model and a single plan. So the key findings are the reforms may simplify the architecture, but at the same time could make implementation more standardized and centralized. Concerns about the regulatory detail being shifted to implementing acts, performance based delivery could face challenges in a model involving multicultural cooperation, especially because of the inherent long term and collective approach to Interreg. So to conclude, the recommendations would be to ensure that certain key operational provisions remain legally based in the ERDF regulation as far as possible to limit the reliance on acts, in particular, to give the European Parliament a greater role in defining the regulatory framework for Interreg and ensure that the performance-based delivery model is tailored to the realities of Interreg, in particular, N plus one rule is unlikely to function. And there are elements of the performance model as well. So I think I'll just.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Yes. Thank you, thank you so much. It was a lot of information. I think that the study, which indeed has been circulated, contains a wealth of details, and I'm really looking forward to the discussion with our members. We will start with the representatives of political groups for really a maximum of two minutes each.
Thank.
Daniel Buda
You, chair. Thank you, Professor Mendez, for everything that you shared with us. You shared a lot with us.
Daniel Buda
Confirmed some of the worries that we have about the commission's proposal, a proposal which doesn't seem to be in line with the parliament's vision of things. What we were hoping for was a proposal that gave predictability to all beneficiaries and stakeholders. And we'd like to hear from you here and in the publication of your study. We'd like to hear about what solutions there are so that we don't pit CAP recipients against cohesion fund recipients. As I say, it's so important that there be predictability, while at the same time maintaining the European nature of these two different policy areas.
You know, if we grant free rein to the member states, if we give them too much flexibility, then we lose the European nature of these policies. Then a final word about the conditions and the conditionality. How will the commission quantify a conditionality, and what will be the impact of conditionality on the recipients in the member states? So those are the thoughts going through our minds, and where we'd like to get some answers. You know, it's not too late to correct the proposal.
We can do that via our amendments. So as I said, I've got my concerns about conditionality, but also about predictability. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you, Mister Buddha, on behalf of the EPP. On behalf of S and D, I have, Missus Repp.
Thank.
Sabrina Repp
you. We, Germany, say you shouldn't believe any studies unless you've counterchecked them yourself, it said in jest there. But we have a lot of things being confirmed here, but I'm tired. For the past year, we've had the same debate time and time again. We've leveled the same criticisms that you have, but we're not getting anywhere.
Speaker 16
We're no one's listening. So I'm asking myself, what kind of discussion are we having? Are we having a fact-based discussion on how to drive forward European policy, or are we going to have a commission-based policy where they impose the commission plan on us? But it would be exactly what the recipients don't want, more complexity, less predictability, and we will be producing something doing something that is easier for us at the European level, but more difficult at recipient level. So I'm a bit disappointed about the fact that we haven't got anywhere with these debates.
Speaker 15
And you're an academic. You're here to put forward some recommendations. You're supposed to give us policy options. But can I ask you to do something? You know, we kind of see eye to eye on this matter.
Speaker 16
You know, of course, we have our role as politicians, but how do we use your arguments to convince the member states and the Commission? Can we finally have an EU budget which is actually beneficial for the beneficiaries? Because your results need to be kind of spread and shared. How do we ensure that people at a local level, at rural level, in rural areas, how do we get them to understand what is on the table here? You know, I'm getting a bit upset here, but I feel like we're going round in circles.
Speaker 15
We've had this debate. I think your work is really good, but we have to get it into our heads. It's about implementing something different, what you put forward.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, missus Repp, also for bringing energy at this time of the afternoon. I think we can all appreciate that. For the Patriots, I have mister Jeb, but I don't know if anyone else would like to take the floor. No? Okay.
Then, we go to no. ECR is not here either. Then we can go to renew. Mister Mullerly will be taking the floor.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and thank you to our guest for the presentation this afternoon. Colleagues, I think it's fair to say we all support simplification. We all certainly support flexibility. But, let's be honest. What the commission's MFF proposals are is a centralization of EU funding at the national level and a hollowing out of the impact of regional and local actors.
And this study is clear. While reducing over 500 programs to just 27 national plans may look efficient on paper, it risks shifting the complexity onto the regions and local authorities, the very people who are responsible for delivering the projects. From an Irish perspective, that matters. Ireland has benefited enormously from cohesion policy, from regional development to infrastructure, to support our local SMEs, and indeed our rural communities. But that success has been built on strong local engagement and regional input.
So if we centralize decision-making into one national plan, we risk weakening the regional voice. The commission estimates that this simplification will result in a 30% reduction in administrative costs. Please forgive me for doubting that situation, particularly when I hear parts of the study seeking out that we would reduce the burdens and seek greater flexibility, but then a warning of the worst of both worlds in other sections coming forward. It just seems like a nightmare in some respects. As pointed out in the study and presentations, these new proposals will see a shift towards more administrative activities.
However, this is not the way forward, colleagues. I believe we must restrict the administrative burden. Even the old leader program had its critics because of the amount of pages someone had to fill out to apply for a leader program grant. We really don't want any more. And we must free up our local and regional actors to deliver programs on the ground.
They know the community on the ground very well. They are the experts, the professionals in these leader companies. Please do not confuse us any further. But above all, please ensure that their budget is ring-fenced. That's what our objective is, and that's what our policy is in renewal as well.
Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the study. I can agree with all my colleagues. There is nothing which surprises me in the study. Actually, many conclusions from the study are something we already have brought before this committee from different positions, having a critical approach towards the commission proposal on new MFS, especially new NRPPs. What, I also, we have to be honest, most of us know in this house that in a few days, two, three days, there will be first vote on the parliament position on new MFF.
And, sorry. Tomorrow. And, actually, the position I mean, I guess many of us have read the document, and the position is in line with what you have been presenting. So there will be a critical position of the parliament towards the commission proposal, but also towards the council proposal, and the fight actually starting from tomorrow on. What is surprising for me and a little bit disappointing when I'm hearing the arguments from the commission side and when I also hear that some of the commissioners defending the proposal, you know, they're talking about it as a part of the national budget.
Like, they don't see the difference that all member states already do have their own national budgets, which can be flexible, which could be changed, which could be deranged. Everything could be done. And then on top of that, it's coming the EU money, which now wants somehow to also be just transferred to the member states and give them a lot of power to do not, I will not say whatever they want, but to deal, give them a lot of discretion to control this part of the money. And we have to understand that EU money is not national budget money. So those are two different pots because, otherwise, EU member states could put payments in the national banks and, you know, get some interest rates and then get money back from the banks and do with the money whatever.
But this is not what we hear, we are in the European Union, European Parliament. And I would really like to see that the commission and the council also understand that we are not a cash machine, but we are the institution, organization, which should then have some rules. In that sense, the battle is starting tomorrow. I hope the vote will be positive, but I would just like to thank you also for your arguments, which are fully in line, I will say, with the parliament position. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Borschinac. Colleagues from the left and ESN, I am not in the room, so I would like to already take the catch the eye. I have three requests, and I also have a short question for myself. Mister Donacimento Cabral, you're the first one.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you very much for this study. It confirms a lot of what we've been saying for the past year, what we've been saying since the commission presented its proposal. There's been a wealth of studies which all agree, and they all disagree with the commission. There's a risk to subsidiarity, to partnerships, and the multi-partnership principle. The regions are being excluded from the definitions and from the design of instruments, and there's no real accountability, no consequences if things are not complied with.
All of this is a real source of consternation. We're really concerned about the future of the cohesion policy, which is vital for the EU. And, apparently, the aim is to simplify, but we think that, actually, sectors will be competing against each other. Cohesion versus agriculture, versus fisheries. This is not beneficial in the slightest.
And then this supposed simplification, know, everything's being put in one single pot. Then there's a couple of other things that I'd like to mention. Of course, we need to adapt cohesion to new priorities, and we saw that during the midterm review, it was possible to adapt. So we know that it is possible to do more and to do better with the cohesion policy without completely overhauling the whole system. So I once again want to stress something, ask something.
How can we ensure that the commission proposal is in line with article 349 of the TFEU? You know, the outermost regions are supposed to have their own special system, but we don't see any real or taking into account of the outermost regions in this proposal.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this presentation. The main issue here is not necessarily simplification. The aim is to ensure real and effective simplification. If we look at the commission proposal, will it involve social agents, social stakeholders?
You know, they and other stakeholders should be involved at all levels and at all stages. So what we do here shouldn't just benefit the legislators. It should also be to the liking of the recipients. I have a question. So we had 450 programs, and now we're just going to have 27 NRRPs.
Couldn't that endanger policymaking, public policymaking as a whole, especially when we know that if you've just got one single national plan, you know, that's going to encompass various areas, ministries, funds, and levels of government? Isn't there a danger there?
Speaker 47
Would like to thank our colleague for this study. I think it showed once more many things that we know, and stressed some of the problems that we are aware of. Let me take a look at this from the position of cities, and because I was mayor of one of the Croatian cities for 12 years, I know that the access to cohesion funds, especially in Croatia, was way too complicated and a huge administrative burden. Smaller local units often would not have sufficient capacities to prepare to implement all these projects, and we find ourselves in situations where the funds were not used or not equally distributed. Furthermore, co-financing rates did not track the actual fiscal possibilities of local governments, and we would find ourselves again in situations where we would be lacking our own funds and could not implement quality projects, which slows down development and creates further problems.
Speaker 48
And the point of the problem rises from the national level, from the central level, because the criteria for the award of funds are unclear and not fair. So now we have the MFO proposal for 2028, 2034, and I believe that these problems will only be further enhanced, especially if we consider the announced reduction of resources. The study clearly points and warns of the danger that this simplification will be done at the level of the EU, but it will not impact the final users, which should be our final goal, and the goal of the entire budgetary architecture. We should clearly say that such nominal simplification is no solution. Cohesion policy needs to remain strong, clear, directed to reducing regional disparities, and I believe this is possible only if the final users continue receiving funds directly, transparently, quickly, and everything else is only cosmetical changes, which will only bring further problems.
Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much for your questions. Then I don't think that I have any other speakers on the list. And a quick question from me. On the issue of the mandatory regional chapters and or partnership plans, as Mister Bostenak said, we're going to be voting on the interim report of the MFF tomorrow, or not we, the Budget colleagues, this parliament in committee. And, I have some concerns about, well, about whether we are already putting in enough safeguards on mandatory region of partnership principle, sorry, partnership principle.
Would it be your recommendation that we make that mandatory in all of our techs from the European Parliament, and that is our negotiating position? Thank you. And now you have a maximum of ten minutes for your answers. So, good luck, I would say.
Carlos Mendez
Okay. Thank you. I'll actually start in reverse with this, last one, because it's quite a prominent one in terms of having regional chapters. And it also partly addresses the point by Senora Serrano Sierra, which is the value of having a regional dimension in terms of the programming, the structures, and essentially the contracts between the EU and the national level. So, to put it simply, yes, it should be mandatory to have regional or territorial chapters.
I guess the question is how many would you have? Obviously, there are variations across countries. You can imagine in certain federal and regionalized countries that will happen by definition because the Belgium regions or the German Länder, you can envisage a model without involving them in regional chapters, but also probably in Spain and in Italy or big countries in France as well. But there are other countries in the present period that have regional programs that are not devolved or regionalized. Greece has regional programs.
Portugal, a small country, has more regional programs than national programs. And it's a very strong supporter of this model, as does Sweden. Romania has just introduced regional programs. So I would actually go further and suggest that you monitor and ask the commission and the member states to present exactly how much of the funding is managed by regional programs, which is already widely known, and you ensure that it doesn't drop beyond that level, but rather, if anything, increases beyond that level. So that a stronger share of funding is managed at the regional level?
And also not just the funding for programs, but also the funding for regionally managed programs. How much funding is managed by managing authorities at the regional level? It's not always the same thing that can be calculated and could be a baseline benchmark for the future. And how much funding is allocated and managed by intermediate bodies across the EU? An intermediate body often manages shares of funding as well, either through territorial instruments or within programs.
So this data should be calculated and published, and that will allow you to track whether multilevel governance is increasing or decreasing in the next period. And then the final points, I guess the first point by Daniel Buddha was on predictability for all stakeholders, and the key solutions to ensure that there isn't a battle over funding between the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy. I think Kiran Malouli provided the response. You need to specify and agree on a budget for cohesion policy and the categories of regions, which it seems to me is the direction that the negotiations have gone anyway. Rural earmarking was introduced.
The agricultural funding was also introduced later, after the commission proposal. So I guess the next step is to specify the budget for cohesion policy, categories of regions as well. How to ensure that conditionality doesn't block funding to beneficiaries at different levels? I believe there are proposals in there already that try to lock in and guarantee funding irrespective of non-compliance with the conditionalities. But I guess that could be strengthened.
That's a question for the commission to clarify, and come back to you on. But there are countries that already do this. I think it's Estonia that has a legal mechanism to ensure that there's a pot guaranteed that will still go to beneficiaries in the case of judicial cases against that introduced financial corrections, for instance. How to do this politically? You raised, of course, this is in your hands at this present moment through your draft reports and then through the negotiations, of course, in the council, the inter-institution negotiations.
So that will be, I guess, the key to determining the final outcome. And just to say, yes, I agree with Gordon Bosunak that there has been a lot of critique of the approach. But at the same time, the commission is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are demands for a more responsive and flexible EU budget, and the key mechanisms it has introduced are to simplify and aggregate budget headings, and at the same time to remove rules, which can also be problematic for implementation. So there is a rationale behind what the commission is proposing.
And I suppose the key is really to try and identify some balance, because ultimately the issues of predictability are tied to the added value of Cohesion Policy, which is its multi-annual programming approach. So that's one core element of value that needs to be preserved, and is distinctive about cohesion policy. The other point is the multi-level governance and partnership keeps on coming up. Why? Because it's the only real policy that has a genuinely multilevel governance approach.
So there's a strong added value there that needs to be preserved. And I guess finally, the financial dimension is the need to balance all of this with the core cohesion policy rationale. Again, it's the only policy that is traditionally focused on less developed regions to increase territorial cohesion and reduce disparities, that has a clear geographical mission to bring people closer to Europe. And it does that through a distinctive delivery model that other policies are not able to do. So the key here is again to try and ensure a balance between the clear needs and the direction of all the EU policies in these difficult geopolitical contexts, the need for flexibility to respond to crises, but at the same time to maintain these three core principles of multi-annual programming, partnership, and the cohesion rationale and mission?
Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much for your clear answer to a number of our questions. And I would like to, well, give the floor to the commission who has just been mentioned as not to be envied. I would agree with that, generally speaking. I'm sure that you have listened carefully to the discussion, Mr. Berkowitz. And if you can reflect on that, we would appreciate it for a maximum of five minutes, please.
Peter Berkowitz
Yes. Thank you. Unfortunately, Missus Reb has left. So I could say that now is not the time. I was going to say that now is not the time to rehearse again all the arguments that we have had, because I think we're now at a different phase.
We look very much forward to the views of the parliament, which will come in the interim report tomorrow. But I would like to focus on one very, very important point and to spend my four minutes, thirty seconds, which remain, on this, which is the issue of simplification. Because the commission proposals make a real attempt to make life simpler for the beneficiaries. And it is very important in your reflections in the coming months and your discussions in the inter-institutional process that amendments to the commission proposal do not make life more complicated for them. And I would just like to highlight, I think, a number of elements of simplification which we see as particularly important.
The first is the single set of rules. We have heard this from beneficiaries for many years, that there are different rules for different instruments. We do have a single set of rules. And I think, it was very clear as well from the presentation. I think some of my points will echo exactly what was said in the presentation.
The second thing is that there are no EU eligibility rules. It will be national eligibility rules which apply at the level of the beneficiary. And this offers, really, member states the opportunity to do things which are much closer to their national systems and, therefore, which are much more familiar to the beneficiaries. The third, and this is a rather technical issue, but is essential, is that the new system, because it is performance based, no longer has this very complex set of accounts starting at the level of the beneficiary who has to account for every item, which has to provide it to the managing authority, which is then checked by different controllers, which is checked at a later stage by the auditors. This system of accounts is no longer there.
What we have therefore proposed is a system which takes away all of these extra operators without, of course, taking away the member states' obligation under its own national rules to fulfill the rule of law. And I think that this is perhaps summarized in the point made by Carlos about the worst of both worlds. Really, we really do want to avoid a system in which we have both performance-based and invoice-based. The current proposal of the commission, there may be need to be some fine tuning, but it does not include an invoice-based system in there. And it is essential that we avoid this if we want to have the benefits of simplification.
Because the other side of this is that it also makes it easier to apply simplified cost options because we no longer have all of these EU-level rules which we have to apply in this rather complicated system. So that's the first point. The second point, which is very important, and there I'd like to also echo what was said by the study, is the importance of capacity building. In the 2021 to 2027 period, we took out administrative capacity building from the possibilities for cohesion policy. It is back in.
And is it important that it stays in and it's fully exploited at all levels, not just national, not just regional, not just local, but even below that. And, of course, in the context of CLLD, which remains an important priority for the commission. The final point is, yes, there is more flexibility. Yes, there is more differentiation. And I think that as suggested by Carlos, this is a trade off, and it was a difficult decision for the commission.
But we are often heard, we have, for example, islands or other types of territory which are in more developed regions. There's not a possibility to modulate because of the intervention rates. We have more flexibility now in the current system. We have a stronger focus, and I would really highlight the fact that we refer to the need to concentrate on specific territories in the regulation in the future. So this is a trade-off.
But I just wanted to highlight, these are three elements which we think are real dimension of simplification for beneficiaries. Secondly, stronger capacity building. And third, this ability to concentrate resources more flexibly on distinct territorial needs. And I will stop there and look forward to the discussion in the coming months. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Mr. Berkowitz. By, well, maybe an exception, but Mister Buddha would like to have the floor very quickly. I would like to ask you to really keep it for just a minute.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much, chair. Can I just say something? You know, you wanted to speak directly to misrep, but I have the same concerns as misrep. But we are admittedly at a different stage. Now you spoke about cohesion policy, but have you really taken what we've said on board?
Have you taken on board what we've said about the CAP? You keep giving us your approach, and we are trying to alter the commission's proposal. We've written two letters already, and I really want you to understand. Yes. We are at a different stage now.
And tomorrow in the budget committee, we will vote, and now we have to recognize that we are at a new stage. But don't ignore what we as the European Parliament are saying. We know what's happening on the ground. We know who the beneficiaries are. We know what they're going on about.
Speaker 52
Please read what we're saying. Please take our document and our proposals into account.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, mister Buddha, for this last remark. I think that we can conclude this point for today. Thank you again for joining us and for sharing your expertise, and thank you for your study. And I would like to move on to the point 10, any other business for today. I believe that Mister Buddha also has a point on the rural pact.
Daniel Buda
Very briefly, madam chair, I have to talk to you about a very important aspect of the Euro Rural Pact. And this has to do with the long term vision for the European Union. It's a rural pact which was launched by the commission, and there was a framework between the public authorities, business, universities and local actors. When it comes to the vision for rural areas in the medium and long term, this structure is informal. It's worked very well when it comes to creating connections, exchange of information, debates on EU policies post 2027, when it comes to rural development and to co-rural development and multilevel governance.
And this will all expire in May, 2026. The members of this working group were informed by the commission that the commission does not plan to extend the group's mandate after May 26. So we're looking at the possibility of continuing the activities of this group after that debate date, May 2026, because we think that it will be very important to continue its activities. In that context, I would like to ask the members of the Reggie Committee if they don't think it would be necessary to send two commission letters to the commissioners to ask for the continuation of the activities of this group, which is very important for rural areas for the next period. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Thank you, Mr. Buddha. I think that, and then I will make a proposal for follow-up. Chair,
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Based on or reacting to what Mister Buddha has just said, I'm the European Parliament's representative in the Rural Pact group. We've met with the commission, and we really want to save this pact and this group. We think it's important for rural areas and other communities, and it's also indispensable for cohesion policy. For all those reasons, we're going to continue to meet to hopefully find a solution, and we really want to keep this group alive and running. Thank you very much, Miss Hernociera.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Bring this to coordinators and see if coordinators agree to send the letters as suggested. Yes. Thank you so much. Then I would like to announce the date of the next meeting. That will be in May, this year in Brussels.
I would like to thank you all for your participation, the secretariat for your support, and the interpreters for facilitating our debates today. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.