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 sittingsDragoş Benea
Against. Abstention ? Adopted. Compromise 26, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Amendment 192, who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 27-17.
One hundred and seven. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 27.
Amendment eight. Sorry. Amendment eight. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 27. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Compromise 28. Compromise 28, who's in favor? Abstention. Against.
Adopted. Going to compromise 29. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 245.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Amendment 247, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 02/1948, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Adopted.
02/1949, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Adopted. 02/2015, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Check, 215. Vote is open. The vote is closed.
It's rejected. It's rejected. It's anyway rejected. So it would be 16 against. So 02/1951.
02/1951. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 02/1952, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 02/1953 was in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 02/1954 was in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 255, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 13. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 31, who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 32, who's in favor?
Against, abstention, adopted. Compromise 33, who's in favor? Against, abstention, adopted. Amendment 265, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 34, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 35, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 36, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Amendment 278, who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 37, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 38, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 49.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 41.
41. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 42.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 318, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 43, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 33, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Going to amendment 323. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 324. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
325. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention? Adopted.
328, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Rejected. Compromise 44, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 313. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Check. The vote is open. 3 zero. Three zero.
The vote is closed. Adopted. 31. 33341. It falls.
300. It falls because that was adopted. So we need to go to 333. Yeah. 2. 342. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Adopted. 343. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 335. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. Compromise, 45. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Amendment 349. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 314, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected. 341, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 46. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 48, who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 348, who is in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 38, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
350, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 49. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 304, 54. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention? Rejected. Check. Check. The vote is open.
Vote is closed. Rejected. Rejected. So we're going to 40356. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Rejected. 306 57. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Rejected. Compromise 50. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 300, 360. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention, adopted. Compromise 51. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Amendment 371. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
372. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Check.
372. I think it's rejected. Yes. It's rejected. The vote is open.
What is close? Rejected. 373. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Rejected. 374. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 375. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
376. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 5,377.
370, sorry. 03/1977. Who's in favor? Against, abstention, adopted. 03/1978.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 03/1979, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 03/1980, who's in favor? Against. Adopted. Sorry.
181. 03/1981, who's in favor? Against? Abstention ? Rejected.
Compromise 52 was in favor. Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 384 was in favor. Against.
Abstention, adopted. Compromise 53. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Amendment 387. Who's in favor? Against, abstention, rejected. 388 was in favor, against, abstention adopted.
Compromise 54. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
Amendment 391. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 393.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 394 was in favor, against, abstention rejected. 395 was in favor, against, abstention adopted.
Amendment 42, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 43, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise one. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise two. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise three.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention? Adopted. Going to amendment 52.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 4.
Who's in favor? Favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
Abstention. Adopted. Compromise six? Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Amendment 61? Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise 61. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Amendment 64. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise seven. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise eight, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise eight no.
Amendment 68. Sorry. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise 9. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 74.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise, amendment 76 was in favor. Against, abstention, adopted.
Compromise 10 was in favor. Against, abstention, adopted. Compromise 11 was in favor, against, abstention adopted. Compromise 12 was in favor, against, abstention adopted. Compromise 13, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. A 194, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise 14. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
Compromise 15. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 102 was in favor, against.
Abstention adopted. 103 was in favor. Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 16 was in favor.
Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 110. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 111. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise, 17. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
Amendment 119. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Rejected.
120. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 18.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 124. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 127. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 19. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopt it. Compromise 20. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 21. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 137. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. 138. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. Compromise 22. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. Amendment 141, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Adopted. 142, who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
143, who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted. 144, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Rejected. Final vote, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. It's adopted. Congratulations. The second vote of this morning is on the draft opinion on amending regulation EU number 1,308, the 2014 new school scheme. During the work on the opinion, 217 amendments have been tabled, and 11 compromise amendments have been negotiated between the groups.
I would like to thank miss Palmisano, the rapporteur, as well as the shadow rapporteur for the work done on preparing the compromise. Before the vote, Miss Palmisano, the floor is yours.
Thank.
Valentina Palmisano
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much. I particularly like to thank all of the colleagues for the excellent work that's been done, the secretariat and the staff particularly who supported us enormously in this work. Here, we're talking about amending a regulation, and we've tried to really tackle all of the challenges that the various different political groups had here. We couldn't, of course, go too far beyond what the original regulation was, so we've tried to keep a balance here.
And I think that the final text with the compromise is that we do have a good balance that we've struck between the different groups. So thank you very much, everybody, and I hope everybody is satisfied with the outcome. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We're going to vote. We're starting with the block vote. Amendment from 44 to 104. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected. Check. Check.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 105. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention. Adopted. Compromise, number one. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise two. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Amendment number 124. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Check. Check. The vote is open. Amendment 124.
The vote is closed. Adopted. 127. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention ? Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
Compromise three. Who's in favor? Against abstention, adopted. Compromise four was in favor against abstention adopted. Amendment 27.
Who's in favor, against, abstention? Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Amendment 28, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise, five, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise six, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 166. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 168. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 168. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
169. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Adopted.
170. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted.
186. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 02/2008.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 02/2009. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Adopted. 02/2014, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Rejected. 02/2015. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention? Rejected. Going to 30 amendment 35. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 36. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 37. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Check. 37. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. 38, who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 39. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 7. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 44. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 8. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise 9. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 10, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 79 was in favor, against, abstention rejected. Amendment 81 was in favor, against, abstention rejected. Amendment nine, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention, check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Rejected. 84. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention? Rejected.
87, who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 89, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 91, who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 93, who's in favor?
Against, abstention, adopted. 94 was in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 95 was in favor, against, abstention adopted. 96, who is in favor? Against.
Abstention, adopted. Compromise 11, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. We're going to amendment 100.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 101. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 103. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Final vote, roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. It's adopted.
Congratulations. The next vote on the radio opinion on the draft regulation establishing the European Competitive Fund, including the specific program for defense research and innovative innovation activities. During the work on the opinion, 523 amendments have been tabled, and 19 compromise amendments have been negotiated between the groups. I would like to thank Mister Dan Barna, the rapporteur for the opinion, as well as the shadow rapporteur for the work done on preparing the compromise. Mister Barna, the floor is yours.
Dan Barna
Thank you. Thank you, chair. I want to also thank my colleagues, shadow rapporteur, for their consistent and relevant support and implication and the cooperation spirit. We, as you said, we had more than 500 amendments, which is quite significant. But in the end, I would say that this really relevant and important report for the MFF was coming, got a good form for our committee.
We managed to introduce those priorities. We all support here the geographical balance to be addressed also in ECF, the need to support the Eastern Flank or the less developed regions. Also, it's explicitly mentioned in our opinion. And I do hope that in the final one, in the final position of the parliament, some of these elements mentioned by us here will be found there. So thank you to all, and I hope we'll have consistent support in voting today.
Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
We're going to vote. We start with compromise number one. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise two, who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 263. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise three. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Amendment 340. Who's in favor, against, abstention, rejected? 340. 340.
340. So we repeat the vote. Who's in favor, against, abstention, or rejected? 341. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Going to 345. Those in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. The vote is open. 345. The vote is closed. Adopted.
347. 347. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
Ah, false. Exactly. So you were correct. This was adopted for 03/4345 is adopted. 03/1946.
We should go for 03/1947. Exactly.
False. 03/1946. Exactly. You were right. Yeah.
03/1947, it's rejected. 03/1948. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
We're going to compromise for. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise five was in favor, against abstention, adopted.
Compromise six was in favor against abstention, adopted. Compromise 7. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Compromise eight. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 57.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted. 522.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Check. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Compromise nine. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Amendment 65. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. 556. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Rejected. Compromise 10. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Adopted. Compromise 11, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 12, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. Compromise 13, who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Amendment 73. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention. Check.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. 592 was in favor. Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. 593, who's in favor? Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. 595, who is in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Adopted. Compromise 14, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Adopted.
Amendment 597, who's in favor? Against. Abstention ? Rejected. 508, 98, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Rejected. 77, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 16. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 125. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Rejected. 126. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Adopted. 130. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Rejected. 133. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
Compromise no. Amendment 134. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
134. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Compromise 15.
Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. An underlined 140. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 142. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. 147. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. Compromise 17. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Compromise 18. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
Going to amendment 184. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise 19.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Amendment 219. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 222. Who's in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 222. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
225, who's in favor? Against? Abstention ? Check. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Rejected. 227. Who's in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Final vote. Roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. It's only plus or minus. Plus or minus? Only plus and minus.
Yes. It's because it's not an absolute majority. It's a simple majority. Yeah. So it's adopted.
Yes. So it's adopted. Our next point on the agenda is the consideration of the draft opinion on the commission's proposal on the European Social Fund for the period 2028, 2034. Our committee is drafting an opinion on the legislative proposal for which the committee on Employment and Social Affairs is responsible. I would like to give the floor to our rapporteur, the hammer. Yeah.
I don't know why Miss Noran Mebarek for presenting the draft opinion. Just a moment. I need to hammer. Yeah. So I give the floor to Miss Nora Mebarek.
Thank.
Nora Mebarek
Thank you very much, chair. I'll wait until the room's a little quieter because the chair doesn't have his hammer, so I'll try and get everybody quiet. So we've got a draft opinion from Reggie on the European Social Fund. As you will know in Reggie and generally, for parliament, the ESF is one of the key pillars of the European Union. It's important for Europe's wealth because, obviously, our wealth is our citizens.
This isn't just a social policy. It's a choice for sovereignty, a sovereignty, and a choice for cohesion. We're in a time now where our economies and our societies are seeing major change, ecological transition, digital transition. And the situation in the labour market is already very tense. We've got more than 7,000,000 Europeans of working age that are out of work currently, and a huge number of companies are struggling to recruit.
For that, the ESF therefore needs to be a key tool to help us to bridge these gaps and improve the situation in relation to inequalities. We know that over 80% of jobs require digital skills now, and we need to ensure that our workforce has these skills so that we can remain competitive. This is something which would also be a benefit to the entire EU, as well as the more vulnerable regions. We have also got a demographic challenge here. We're going to have 1,000,000 fewer workers every year, in the near future.
And so it's absolutely vital for us to invest in health care services and our service industry more generally. Otherwise, it will threaten our social cohesion, and we'll also see job creation drop even further. Now we also have to talk about poverty. We have got more than 95,000,000 people in the EU currently facing poverty, and they've got limited access to health care, to food, and to education. It's therefore incredibly important that we turn this around.
This is something that cannot be ignored. It's why the fight against social exclusion and poverty needs to be at the very heart of the EU's social measures. And we need to particularly focus on people with disabilities, children, migrant communities, and marginalized communities. That's why I am really focusing on ensuring that we look at social inclusion in an ambitious way and to ensure that we can provide material and food assistance to people who are struggling. I also will be defending the European child guarantee because we cannot accept a situation that we've.
got at the moment, which.
Nora Mebarek
Is that 25% of children are growing up in poverty. We have to ensure that we can use the NRPPs to reduce these risks. We have to ensure that the ESF is also adaptable. It needs a strong legal basis in the treaties and cannot be a subordinate measure. I will therefore be defending an autonomous, clearly identified, and well-targeted ESF in the future.
In this context, investing in the social side of things in the future is something which will help us to leverage greater funds. And that's why we are suggesting so much funding for the ESF, as well as further funding for the child guarantee and greater support for more vulnerable regions. Colleagues, I know I can rely on you in our discussions on this.
I finished.
Anyway. No need to tell me to slow down now. Well, thank you very much, colleagues. I'd like to thank everybody who was involved. I can see that we don't have all the shadows with us today.
But, nonetheless, hopefully, we can hear from an EPP colleague about what their vision is for this file. Otherwise, I'd like to hear all of your views on this draft opinion on the ESF. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Now I give the floor to Miss Maria Elena Nevado del Campo from EVP. It's me. It's me. Yeah. Miss. That's it.
Vice president, Gabriela Gershinen, the substitute.
Gabriella Gerzsenyi
Thank you very much, sir. Effectively, it's me now reading on behalf of madam Elena Nevado del Campo, who apologizes but is absent today. So first of all, thanks to all the colleagues working on the file. The European Social Fund has always been a key fund within the structural and cohesion policy funds. The main aim of this fund is to provide support for quality employment, skills, and social inclusion, as well as for social innovation, youth employment, child poverty, demographic transition, and addressing material deprivation in the European Union.
For this reason, as the EPP reporter, we consider that the ESF must be one of the funds supporting not only the future competitiveness of Europe, but most notably its social and territorial cohesion. Considering that the commission proposal merges the ESF support and objectives under the umbrella of national and regional partnership plans, many elements should be discussed. This status of mostly following specific objectives set out in the NRPP regulation ought not to deprive it of its treaty-based position in article 162. From the point of view of cohesion policy, the fund should not undermine its consistency. Following the approach of the Murashant Tavares report, the obligatory minimum share of 14% of funding provided under the NRPP to be devoted to meeting the union's social objectives has been replaced by a proper and specific budget to the ESF amounting to €124,000,000 in current prices.
This should now be reflected in the current report. Moreover, considering ESF operational programs have disappeared in NRPPs, a balanced approach is needed in various directions. Firstly, general and specific objectives should be clarified within the fund, as expressed in the position of David Casa and Marit Ma'i. More work could also be done in the areas of definitions, eligibility, and programming. Secondly, we must guarantee the full involvement of regional and local authorities in social policy actions or future social chapters in accordance with their competencies.
ESF must remain as an effective tool to prevent geographies of this content. The EPP intends for the ESF to be efficient and effective, providing a springboard for an integrated EU labor market, and more broadly for its entire social market economy model. To this end, it might propose for a substantive part of its resources to be earmarked for the development of skills and for employer incentives to support workforce training, as well as for other measures, including access to services. Fund allocations to different targets should be better safeguarded to achieve a more balanced approach, in line with previous levels of funding. EPP calls for an ESF that invests in our society through enhancing the skills and education of our workforce, reinforces labor mobility and employers' access to human capital, and ensures citizens' participation in the common market.
The approach adopted should be in line with the European social model and the Treaty of Rome objectives of raising the standard of living and pursuing a harmonious development. Considering the current challenges, the ESF should also address new tendencies in the labor market and other major challenges such as the demographic transition and the rising cost of living. Last but not least, other social problems must be considered, such as housing affordability, work-life balance, and family support. Thank you very much.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Thank you, Miss Gershenny. From this year, Mister Sherban Dimitri Sturza. I'll speak in Romanian. Chair,
Colleagues, I'd like to begin by saying that I agree with the rapporteur. Merging cohesion with the other traditional policies of the EU, namely agriculture, fisheries, and social policies, well, this would be a terrible mistake because we would have less money for more objectives, less clarity, and less real impact on people's lives. This approach would green light the EU's member states' political issues, actually, and they would neglect local and regional issues. Do you know what the single mother from a poor place, from a poor village in your country needs, actually? I'm asking you because I know that some socialists who tried to say that they only want to help the vulnerable only managed to absorb a very low percentage of the cohesion funds.
In Romania, they only managed to absorb 23,000,000,000. A lot of money is left unspent with the money they should have built kindergartens by school buses, which they didn't. We should have funded hot meals in schools to fight school dropout and many others. You who are here in Brussels should wonder why countries cannot absorb the funds. And if you think that they can't, then something needs to be done.
Don't you think this should change post-2027? We cannot continue with this red tape coming from Brussels that suffocates and hinders those who dare to make a change in their communities. So we cannot accept simplification for bureaucrats, but not for the beneficiaries.
From patriots, Mister Roger?
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for her good work on this file. Colleagues, the proposal from the European Commission to merge the European Social Fund into the NRP plans is just not acceptable in my opinion. I say so because I believe we must protect the ESF as a stand-alone fund because its mission is simple, in my opinion. It should be investing in people, in jobs, and in social inclusion, and that clarity must be maintained.
I believe we must also avoid over-centralization of the funds or barriers for those using it, because at the end of the day, regions and local authorities must be at the center of delivery. Crucially, in my opinion, the ESF must also finish the job of a just transition, a fund apparently now forgotten in the corridors of this building. I say we cannot forget those who are facing this transition every day. I say we must invest in these communities, continue to retrain workers, and ensure they are not left behind. It's essential to follow up on reskilling for the labor market, recognizing the demographic pressures on our regions and the geopolitical challenges.
Colleagues, ultimately, this is about ensuring the ESF continues to deliver real, visible improvements in people's lives, not just in our towns and cities, but across every region of the union. Thank you.
Colleagues,
Cristina Guarda
When we go to the territories, we often have discussions with stakeholders all trying to give us one single message that Europe is the institution that more than any other actually invests in people, and that is thanks to the ESF Plus. We support access to work. We promote dignified working conditions. We ensure social inclusion. We take care of our people, and we are absolutely trying to improve the quality of life of European citizens and strengthen social and economic cohesion between the areas and regions as well.
The ESF is at the heart of Europe. It helps to bridge gaps and make up for inequalities. The challenge that we're facing today is more complex than ever before. Poverty is continuing. Also, for people who are in work as well, people who in my own area are working incredibly hard, but simply can't find housing because they cannot get a dignified income and don't have access to housing.
We're also seeing a lot of inequalities both in towns and in rural areas, and discrimination is still far too high and far too widespread. We're seeing this particularly affect vulnerable people, marginalized people, migrant communities, and young people as well who struggle to find their place in society and in the labor market. And so faced with all of that, the ESF needs to be ambitious, targeted, and brave. And the EU needs to continue to put the fight against poverty and social exclusion at the very heart of what it does. We need to ensure that we can have strategies that are as effective as they can be in achieving our goals.
But there's something else that we have to take into account, and that is absolutely fundamental, and that is the territorial aspect of this. We have got major differences between our regions in terms of proportions, skills, and social inclusion. And so it is here that the ESF plus has an incredibly important role to play and needs to be implemented because its role here is vital in creating social inclusion in our regions and between our regions as well. And it's for that reason that we cannot only list the reasons why the ESF is important. Instead, we need to ensure that the work it does actually has an impact, and we need to defend a solid and autonomous ESF as well.
In a historic moment like this, where we're seeing inequality increase, where we're seeing international crises and war worsening daily, and the economic uncertainty that that brings. We very much believe that it would be a political mistake to weaken the ESF. We need to ensure that we can maintain people's faith in the European project. This, at the end of the day, isn't a cost. Instead, this is something which will help us to get a more consistent, fairer EU, which leaves nobody behind.
And I'd like to thank the rapporteur very much for all her work on this.
Kathleen Funchion
Thank you, chair. Oh, thanks to the rapporteur firstly for this opinion, which I find is very much in line with my own priorities as well in relation to this. Previously, I think nearly at the start or at the early part of our mandate, I was the rapporteur to this committee for the ESF plus opinion setting out the reggie position and was delighted when we had unanimous support for this. So, hopefully, we can all work together to really make a difference. I'm glad the repertoire makes it clear, and I agree 100% that the ESF must remain a strong, autonomous, well resourced instrument founded on its own legal basis in the treaties.
So just from a cohesion point of view, that must be the clear message, too. We cannot allow ESF Plus to compete against cohesion policies. They have separate goals, they must be treated separately, and they must be funded separately. At this point, I do want to make it clear that I think we've been handed a very difficult situation by the commission. We are considering amendments to a piece of legislation that is in effect actually being amended in another file, and it's really an impossible situation.
And I think it's to the detriment of those of us seeking positive changes in the framework for the MFF. So just in terms of specifics to outline some of those, might be looking back at my own opinion from last year. I'd taken some of those ideas and looking for their inclusion. So how apprentice schemes, for example, in house building skills could be a way of using the ESF Plus to tackle the housing crisis, something that I think everybody in our member states should identify with. I suggest that specific schemes could help communities where large numbers of new arrivals, people seeking asylum, are based.
Women and children also must be at the center of the ESF Plus, and we need coherence on how projects like Leader can play a social role in rural areas by joined-up planning around ESF Plus. I will always make the point and return to the fact that we cannot lose sight that no matter how much we improve at the ESF Plus, without adequate funding, it's all for nothing. And I think that's a crucial point. We need to send a strong message that cuts to our social funds, while we are looking at constant money and no end of money for defense security. Is being ramped up.
It is completely unacceptable, and we need to keep making that point. The ESF Plus has played a crucial role in educating and in training workers and in preparing people through employer-led upskilling courses. We've had training of early childcare professionals funded through a number of other programs and projects in third level institutions, which are all positives. Programs such as Youth Reach have had great success in addressing personal and social development needs of particularly young school leavers and those facing unemployment in that sector. Programs like Solace, which is funded through the ASF plus, have played a central role across from an Irish point of view, the six regional ETB offices in Ireland South in combat and long term unemployment, assisting disadvantaged groups across the labor market to access the labor market, and providing a range of training courses to meet the needs of people of unemployed persons and other people seeking employment to enable them to actually seek proper and meaningful employment, which is really, really important.
We need to strongly defend the critical role of the EU funding like the ESF Plus. It must not simply be gutted of its social side to fund defense. I'm extremely concerned that many others are lining up to cut the budget or to funnel spending into the military and other areas. We must reject that agenda completely. We need to ensure that this committee is strong in protecting the ASF plus as its own program, and make the funding, the existing funding, to make it real for people in our towns, cities, and rural areas.
Thank you, chair.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Going to KHDI interventions, and we start with Mister Paulo Nachimento Cabral from EPP.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese.
Thank you, rapporteur, for this excellent report. The ESF is very important, and it's one of the drivers of our cohesion. We can't allow or accept that people are left behind, that people who are underprivileged in our society are left behind, and that's why we need to support those who need it the most. We need this for the right to stay. We need it for the development of our regions, and we need to ensure that we combat desertification of many of the regions in the EU.
I would also like to thank the rapporteur for talking about all of this and for making sure that we at the EU do not forget those who are most vulnerable. I'd also like to highlight lifelong learning. The ESF has been very important for my region, which is the Azores and Madeira, as well as the Mainland and those outermost regions. So the cohesion fund has been extremely important. We need to maintain the funds, and we have to maintain solidarity.
And so, for the, I'd like to highlight one of the most important projects from the RRP, which is the new elderly program, which allows elderly people to stay at home and to have active aging and who are not simply left in old age homes and are often under resourced and far from their homes, which further sidelines these people. I'd also like to stress that we need to keep the ESF as a separate funding that it is ring fenced, and so that it can be stable and predictable for regional and national governments to make use of. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for mentioning article 399. It was part of the reason that we were very happy with this work, and it's very important that we focus on the scourges that affect our populations: housing, public health, especially synthetic drug use, which has completely devastated our younger generations, especially in the outermost regions. So we're here to work together.
Thank you for the work, and we'll do everything to ensure that the ESF is robust and that it is able to respond to the challenges of our society.
Missus Sabine Arreb from S and D.
Sabrina Repp
Thank you, Chair. And I thank the rapporteur for this good proposal, for this good report. It's very important that we have a very clear position in the Reggie Committee. And so there are many things which have been said that I can only agree with. For me, it's also important to point out that, especially as a regional development committee, we have a very important role.
Because this social pillar is really coming under pressure. And there are cuts foreseen. And we see the commission is not able to be specific about how the ESF should be, well, it should be funded. So there are various studies and calculations which show that when my country, Germany, for example, they would only get half of the funds for ESF. If things go badly, it will only be a third.
And I know that comparatively speaking, Germany is a rich country, but we have very great regional disparities. And therefore, it's very important that we strengthen this regional component. We have to work to support this because we can see that there are cuts being made in the welfare state. So the member states and the council are talking about making cuts across the board, horizontally. And if this is going to affect ESF, then there will be even less funds available for the regions, and that's not acceptable.
Therefore, it's important that these objectives and targets for the ESF are anchored in the regulations so that we have clear, when you have performance-based support, that's also in place because we need cohesion, we need solidarity, and we need that in the field of ESF in order to offer people long-term perspective and long-term projects. That's not always possible when you have performance-based indicators. So I hope that we've been able to work together well in order to be able to support the ESF from the side of the regional committee. Thank you.
Alexandra Mehnert
It's clear that the ESF is really a core instrument for social cohesion and for tackling crisis within the European Union. It makes a massive contribution to things such as youth employment and for education and training. And therefore, I would speak for that, that in the future, it should remain its own separate fund. This needs to be made use of in an efficient way. It has to be targeted.
It enables people to stay in their regions. And I consider it's extremely important that the fund should remain a separate fund. And this should, and if you look at areas, regions which are undergoing transitions, the ESF provides very important support for this. And I'd like to give you an example of my own area, Saxony Anhalt. So they receive €551,000,000, and we can use that in order to make sure that there is success in the schools.
This makes it possible for us to provide social services in the schools. And this is a very good example of how social cohesion can work. There is a network which is involved with creating support success in schools, so it can make it possible for young people to have high quality education. And the ESF works best when it is targeted, when it can be relied upon, and when it's used to address real needs. And for the next, that's what we have to focus on for the next programming period.
Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
I continue with mister, no, miss Ruf Passerman, director of DJ employment at the European Commission for five minutes.
Ruth Paserman
Thank you. Good morning. First of all, I would like to thank you all for the very interesting examples that you gave of the use of the ESF in your territories. In this, indeed, a very fund which is very useful for many of the things you mentioned for the future on reskilling and upskilling and making sure that it's possible to convert the skills of workers for have a longer working lives, more adapted to the priorities of the tie of the moment. For example, addressing the issues of the just transition.
It's important to it invests in early childhood education and care, allowing women to reenter early the labor market. And since we have a demographic problem with a fall of 1,000,000 people of employment a year in Europe. We need everyone who can work to be in work. It addresses poverty, social exclusion, material deprivation, access to services, which allow the declining communities to continue and to allow living throughout the territory, that people can live throughout the European territories. So all of these things are currently financed by the ESF, and I just want to reassure you that all of these things will continue to be financed in the next format.
What has changed is indeed the architecture. The commission has proposed to merge all the funds which are direct managed via the member states and the regions through a single fund. But this is also to allow synergies. I mean, I think you also mentioned the, you know, there has to be a joined up approach. Well, this is how you get a joined up approach, having a single plan that is programmed jointly.
I want to reassure you that the role of the regions will remain the same as it is now if this is what is wanted in the member states in the sense that there is a choice to have perhaps some things done more at national level. But in general, the commitment we expect, our expectation is that all regions will continue to be involved as they are now from the beginning in the programming, in the planning, in the monitoring, and in the implementation, in the actual implementation of the programs, including the European Social Fund. Now the, of course, also in the evaluation afterwards exposed. The other important point is that the more general partnership, so not only the partnership between different levels of governments, national, regional, and local, but also with the relevant stakeholders will be continued to be maintained, and the current code of good practice for partnerships will continue to apply. So this is, yeah, this is what I wanted to say.
Basically, there is a change in architecture, but this change in architecture doesn't actually affect what can be financed. On the actual level of financing, it's really not up to me to decide or say. The commission has made a proposal which we think is realistic given the various, it's ambitious, but realistic given the various challenges that we face. And the our proposal with 14% of the NRPP invested in social makes the investment in social more or less at the same level as it is now. So, okay, it's not anymore.
I agree, but it's not fewer. And so that's, I don't think that is just to reassure you that the vision that the commission has proposed. Thank you.
Nora Mebarek
Yes. Thank you very much, chair. Maybe there's just three points that I could raise in response to what the colleagues have said, particularly here speaking to the commission. Now Reggie isn't on the employment committee. The fact that we're providing our opinion, obviously, we're focusing more on territorial inequalities.
Now when I was speaking before, I was raising this, but we were talking about one single fund for lots of member states with lots of different regions. Now I don't think we can look at it in a fragmented way. I don't think that's how Reggie wants to look at it, how Parliament wants to look at it. And I don't think that's the vision that we have for the ESF. We want an ESF to be autonomous, to look at the regions, to be based on the different realities of the regions, and to ensure that it is fully accessible.
Taking into account the other qualities between the different regions means perhaps sometimes looking at more objective conditions, because not all of the regions start at the same point or need to finish at the same point or indeed have the same concerns and require the same level of funding. You're talking about regions, and you mentioned most vulnerable regions, whether they be economic difficulties or other kind of difficulties, and also transition regions, of course. And, yes, these are areas which are of particular concern to the Parliament and the Commission. And within the ESF, these need to be part of this project where we can guarantee co-financing, sometimes up to 100%, particularly when we're talking about essential services such as health care and housing. Now, another point, and this is something which I think is very important and has been raised by many of our colleagues in the political groups that have spoken this morning, and this is the short term results that you're talking about in the ASF as if those people who are furthest from the labor market should very quickly upskill so that they can find work very quickly.
But that's not what life is really like. And I have to be honest, I'm a little bit worried about the proposals that have been put forward now by the commission when you're talking about territorial cohesion and cohesion within the EU. Thank you.
Pascal Arimont
Thank you, mister. Thank
You, chair. How often do I have to say for my dear colleague, Missus Marik, that she's right on all the points. And I respect, obviously, the points made by the Commission. But I cannot respect this construction, which is being put forward by the European Commission with this single fund. So, to be specific, I come from a very small region within Belgium.
This region has specific needs with regard to reintegrating people into the labor markets. And we have the opportunity under the previous structure of the European Social Fund and under the MFF that we could have a specific program that we were able to negotiate with the Commission, and then we could work in a targeted way to reintegrate people into the labor market. And I've visited many of these projects. There was really very good work being done on the ground, and every cent of European money was being invested in an outstanding fashion. People really valued it.
What we're doing now, while there is a risk if we don't fight against this, is that these small regions such as mine won't have their own operational programme. They won't be allowed. And within Belgium as a whole, will be able to work in cooperation with the other regions. And the structure will be different. So I have the fears that we will take a structure that was working perfectly before and was being used to finance good quality projects, and change that.
And then second point is that when we talk about the European Union, well, it's seen as being a distant thing for many people, as an elite project. Well, the ESF Plus, that was the best advertising for the EU, the best that you could have. Because on the ground, with people in the regions, anchored in the regions, you could say that these projects were co-financed by the EU. And I don't know whether at the federal level, at the national level, they will necessarily make it clear that these projects are co-financed by the European Union. They'll act as though it's financed at the national level if it's working well.
And if it isn't working well, they say it is the EU. So we should keep what we've got so that we can identify it as being in the regional areas, as being funded by the EU, and that the euros are being invested for people. And that's why we have to work against this new structure in the parliament, and we have to fight with the council if we can't, if that doesn't happen. Thank you.
Thank.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
You, chair. Sorry for taking the floor again, but the intervention from the commission, which I thank, brings me again to the debate. Because the commission said they expect the regions could be involved. They have their hopes that this could happen, and I think that this is not acceptable. We need to guarantee that the regions are involved.
We need to guarantee that they will participate actively in the elaboration of all of these programs. And I have to subscribe to all of what was said by my colleague, Pascal Arimo, because this worked when we respect the principle of subsidiarity and partnership. The regions had their own programs, and it worked well. We have very good data on that. And when we are now trying to centralize this important fund, what we are doing is take from the regions their responsibilities.
And then, of course, the central state will not have the capacity to have this approach differentiated in their region, in their countries because they will try to found the solution one size fits all, and this is not acceptable. So I believe that we should increase somehow the conditions for the regions, the local, the regional authorities could participate on the design, implementation, execution of this important fund. Because if not, we are losing what we are always defending here is the subsidiarity principle and also the principle of partnership. That is so important for our regions, for our local communities, because when the services are near to the people, they know what are the needs of that people. We they know how to intervene.
They know to respect how different cultural or even different positions that the people have in order to achieve the best result possible. We free centralized this as a principle at the I believe it's a way to a disaster. I will not say disaster, but it's a way to making things not work so good as they were. Thank you so much.
Sabrina Repp
You. Miss Sabrina.
I think it's great that we're having a real discussion in the Reggie Committee, and we see that many colleagues are of a similar opinion with regard to the ESF and the structure of the funds. One thing that I would like, however, is to see that in the negotiations for the national and regional plans, we should act in the same way, because it's not being proposed this way from the side of the commission. And so as a parliament, we have to call for an independent ESF with a clear budget. And that's why I would ask my democratic colleagues, I would appeal to them that that's what we demand in the negotiations. If we are of the same opinion, then we should show that, and we should act in that way.
We have this opportunity, so let's go.
Ciaran Mullooly
Sir, Chiara Mouloui. Just a quick point, Chair. I mean, last Thursday week, our executive vice president, mister Fito, came to Ireland, and he came to a meeting organized with the regional assemblies, with the regional authorities, and the local authorities, the county council. So we had a discussion for one hour on their role. But they said to him on that day that if this structure as proposed now goes ahead, they fear that it will be the member state government that will make these decisions over their head.
They will decide, and they will decide on their national priorities, not regional priorities. And that is the issue at the heart of our concern about the structure proposed, that it will be the national government looking at their national concerns and their financial situation and putting that first and putting the region second, and we do not want that. Thank you.
Thank.
Nora Mebarek
You, chair. Thank you, everyone. I've noted all the comments on the draft opinion. I realized that there aren't quite a bit that we need to look at when it comes to being an autonomous fund. It's really important that this has to do with European solidarity.
So once again, thank you to everyone. And, of course, I am open to hearing everything that you're saying. So after the votes this morning, well, there will be many amendments. So thank you again.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. And the final, I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is Wednesday, 14 May at noon. The vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting of 15 July 2026. Thank you so much. We're going to next point is the consideration of the amendments tabled on the radio opinion on the common agriculture policy for the period from 2028 to 2034, for which mister Rouge is the rapporteur.
A total of 417 amendments have been tabled. The members will now have the opportunity to discuss the issues they have raised in their amendments. But now I give the floor to mister Apporteur, mister Roger. Thank you, chairman.
André Rougé
colleagues. As the rapporteur for this committee on the implementation of the union support to the common agricultural policy for the period from 2023 to 2034. I wanted to undertake this report, as I've already stated in our previous meeting, with one guiding principle, which was in the general interest. Farmers feed us. They maintain our territories.
Our farmers on the front lines when it comes to our security and our sovereignty in terms of food. However, often, they are ignored in favor of technocratic approaches that are disconnected from the earth and which are often ephemeral. The cohesion policy and the application of it and the cap by the commission often just highlights this disconnect of Brussels from the on-the-ground reality. So as I've already said, I've made a choice to take an open and constructive approach. I accepted the amendments from all of the political groups present in the reporters meeting as long as they were in line with improving the text.
At no point was I guided by ideological or partisan principles, but once again, all I wanted was to seek something in the general interest. What does that mean? That means assuring that we have food sovereignty in an increasingly unstable world, at a time when maritime trade routes are demonstrating just how vulnerable they are and showing us what the risks are in the supply chains. So we need to ensure that the CAP truly protects agricultural revenues. General interest also means simplifying the norms for farming.
We must not impose restraints, increasingly restrictive restraints, which then affect our market. We need to make a clear distinction between the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy, and to make sure that they are distinct considering that the beneficiaries by nature are distinct themselves. We need to ensure that the posay is ring-fenced because it is specific to the issues that farmers face, which are often really affected by competition. We need a CAP that is preserved, that is pragmatic, that is just, and that respects the work of our farmers. I want our committee to overcome partisan division and to be united.
That means respecting the specificities of the CAP as a major policy of the EU. Thank you for listening.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. Indeed, Mister Motrinu sends his apologies for not being able to join us today due to the ongoing political situation in Romania. I will therefore speak on his behalf. Let me begin by thanking all political groups for their constructive work and for the substantial number of amendments tabled. At this stage, it is important that our opinion remains fully within the competencies of the Regi Committee while avoiding overlaps with the remit of the Agri Committee, particularly on technical agricultural matters.
On the budgetary side, I welcome the strong call to increase allocations dedicated to the common agricultural policy. I support an approach that remains consistent with the figures adopted in the interim report, 3 and 20,300,000,000 for farmers' income support, and EUR 106,410,000,000 for rural development, and EUR 7,330,000,000 for a dedicated POS A program. Let me also recall that the European Parliament has consistently advocated for a common agriculture policy based on two pillars, maintaining outside the NRPPs. I believe we should carry this clear mandate forward in the upcoming negotiations with the council. From a regi perspective, our added value lies in delivering a strong position on place-based development and decentralization.
In this context, proposals referring to the integrated territorial instruments such as Leader should be supported, as they empower local communities and ensure that the CAPP responds effectively to local needs. At the same time, we must acknowledge a structural challenge. Many local actors in rural areas still lack the administrative capacity and technical expertise required to access the managed European funds. Strengthening these capacities, therefore, is essential to ensure effective absorption and tangible results on the ground. Finally, the CAP must remain a policy that supports farmers based on their activity rather than their retirement status, while ensuring strong and predictable support for young farmers and generational renewal.
In conclusion, I'm confident that through our work on this opinion, we will deliver a clear, ambitious, and well-defined vision for rural development supported by adequate funding and a strong territorial dimension. Thank you.
Thank you. Miss Sabine Arep?
Sabrina Repp
Thank you, chair, and thank you also to the shadow rapporteurs for the amendments that they have proposed. We can see that it's especially important that we have a position on the CAP from the Regi Committee. So this is not an agriculture committee position. This is a Regional Committee position. And I want to encourage everybody here to place the focus on the regional perspective and regional development.
This means that the CAP, well, we're all of the same opinion on this. It comes under the national and regional plans, but at the same time that we want to have an equal treatment for both areas, for cohesion and for the CAP. That would be important. So we call for having the second pillar to remain, so that regional development can be taken out of CAP. So we need a comprehensive economic diversification. It's important that the leader program remain in place.
And it should be quite clear that there is a co-financing of 80% for structurally weak areas should be in place. So a clear budget for LEADER. It should be obligatory for the Member States that the LEADER programme continues to be in place. It's also important that we make it clear in our position that we want to stick with the partnership principle so that local and regional authorities are involved in implementation and monitoring, and that multilevel governance should be strengthened. For us, it is also important that the regional category as a basis for differentiated support should be maintained so that that remains in place for the regions.
At the same time, we have the horizontal objective of equal opportunities for the genders to be in place so that women so that there is gender mainstreaming across the board. We also want to have far-reaching restructuring in the agricultural area so that there is a proper transition period before the regulation comes into force. We want to have a smooth transition between the two programming periods, so that you don't have financing gaps. This is very important. Today, we have also seen this in the ECF report that it is our task to make sure that the agricultural areas and the regional perspectives are anchored.
And I look forward to working together with the reporter and the shutter operators so that we really can put in a position which takes the perspective of our committee in place.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and indeed, thank you to colleagues across the committee for their constructive amendments and their engagement on this file. This is a crucial proposal, not just for farmers and agriculture, but for the future of our rural regions. And that's why I think the Reggie perspective is so important here. The amendments I have tabled reflect a clear and consistent priority, ensuring that the Common Agricultural Policy continues to deliver for our rural communities. And that's why I've rejected the proposal from the commission on the NRPP proposal, and I've copied the cap articles from the NRPP proposal back to the cap regulation, where I believe they belong.
I've done this in line with the conference of president's endorsement and the prior letter sent to president Metzla by the co-rapporteurs of the NRPP and the cap regulations. I think that's what they should be. On the budget, the amendments I've tabled make a strong case that the cap must be maintained at a credible and stable level at around 0.36 to 0.37% of EU GNI. We're simply maintaining a historically justified level of support. Now, at a time of geopolitical instability, food security concerns, and pressure on rural economies, weakening the cap, in my opinion, would be a mistake.
My amendments rightly underline that supporting farmers is not optional. It's essential, in my opinion, for territorial cohesion. So I've also a strong focus on generational renewal and rural vitality. The amendments I propose reinforce the need not just to assess the demographic challenge, but to put in place concrete plans to address it, including tackling the entry barriers at both national and regional levels. This is essential if we're serious about the long-term future of farming in Europe.
Sometimes, chairperson chairman, the language we hear from the commission drives a lot of us nuts in this room. They talk about a toolbox for demographics, a toolbox for fuel costs, a toolbox for major issues in the world. But when one goes to look at this toolbox, many member states see the toolbox is locked or it's missing or it doesn't apply to their member state. And I found this out for demographics recently when I went to the commission to find out who's in charge of the toolbox for demographics and restoring population. And there was nobody there.
There was no person in the commission responsible. So I think it's essential that our proposals on leader and rural development in particular are given priority from a Regio perspective. Leader is key at the ground level in rural Ireland and around Europe. Simplification and reducing administrative burden, and indeed strengthening local delivery, I think, are key to ensuring that funding actually reaches communities on the ground and delivers the real impact. And more broadly, the amendments tabled by colleagues, I think, strike a careful balance.
They defend a strong cap, promote subsidiarity and regional involvement, and support farmers through, I think, realistic transitions, but reinforce the link between agriculture and territorial cohesion. We need strong farming. We need strong agriculture. We also must reinforce community development and support people who are not involved in farming but are involved in community development. There's a mix there to be found, and I'm determined we will find it.
So that's the approach I think we should be taking in this committee. Thank you, chair.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much. I will speak in Italian. I'd
I like to thank you all very much for your contributions. I think we're all very much aware of the issue relating to the NRPPs and the amount of space this leaves to the member states. And the same is true for the cap where it's a document of 20 pages, and this is ridiculous, really, if you look at what has happened in the past. We need to have a common agricultural policy, not lots of different ones. And here, we need to strengthen the common part of the common agricultural policy.
This is incredibly important. On the agri environment measures, instead of moving, instead of focusing on incentives, we need to look elsewhere as well. Obviously, we do still need to have incentives. If you don't have them, we're not going to be able to maintain these. The commission needs to ensure that the national plans retain at least the same level of 2023 to '25, with 25% of the CAP going to agri-environment measures with the co-finance financing.
Otherwise, it's just not going to be, it's not going to work, and we need our farmers to continue to be able to produce. We also need to be ensuring that we're protecting our ecosystems, but they need to generate income. A resilient agricultural industry is not about branding. It's about cultural diversification, protecting the soil, protecting our waters, and the labeling needs to drive towards agri-environment measures, and we need to ensure that organic farming is also maintained. At the moment, this is something which is left completely discretionary.
Now for young farmers, we need to ensure that there is funding available to them. We need to ensure that at regional level, where demographic issues and access to land are a problem, that it is the regions that are in charge of this because they know what to do better than they do at national level. And on the performance regulation, the evaluation of the national plans needs to look at fundamental rights, the rule of law, and all of the conditionality included, as well as, of course, gender balance. This is something that we talk about in this committee, and we need to ensure is actually respected in practice. The social side of this also needs to be reinforced and protected, so that we can protect agricultural workers.
Now, regions. Agri-environment measures, a leader. These are things which need to be managed by regional authorities because this is the best level for them to be managed at. They know what needs to be done. And the partnership principle needs to be real.
It needs to be local, regional, with farmers' unions, civil society. We need to ensure that all of these are involved throughout the whole programming cycle. And there's one final point to make on the leader. Here, we need to guarantee that there is a level of funding which is equal to what we've had before. The combination of investment in agriculture and rural areas is incredibly important.
Thank you.
Kathleen Funchion
Thank you, chair. I just want to also thank colleagues who've put in amendments and have been working on this file, and look forward to working on this further as well. I think we can agree that the movement of agriculture articles from the NRP legislation to the CAP legislation is a positive step forward, ensuring that the CAP remains a separate fund. I know from my own point of view, and I'm sure many will agree, I will always continue to support a separate cap that is adequately funded and delivers on the goals of supporting farmers and food security in the EU. The commission's proposal, and now its letters, which have no legal basis, have caused deep concern among the farming community.
I'm glad to see there's been some backtracking, but a huge mistake, in my opinion, has been made by trying to make life simpler for themselves and the commission, but not for actual people on the ground. And this continues to be a theme, a digit, this disconnect. Now more than ever, farmers need a strong, dependable, and clear cap that delivers consistency, and that has been lacking, I suppose, at times, in the agricultural policy. It's also important to acknowledge the wide diversity of farming across Europe, and any future cap must allow member states a certain level of flexibility to deal with specific national issues or difficulties that may arise, and that EU level policies must take into account these differences prior to their implementation. And then I want to focus from the regional development angle, leader must be protected by delivering a ring fenced fund available in all regions that will be substantial enough to meet ambitions on the ground.
And I think we would need to be very clear and very strong on this. There is huge concern, and rightly so, throughout the leader program at the moment. It's of the utmost importance to support projects in rural areas, and any threat to the quantity or accessibility of LEADER funds must be opposed in this committee's opinion. We need to protect the leader, and by protecting the leader, we protect regional development and cohesion. For many in rural areas, leader is the most viable and most accessible EU fund, and the community-led structure should not only be maintained but expanded to deliver more locally driven projects.
And for a lot of people, it's their kind of clear connection to the EU and the work that we're doing over here. Finally, rural development is not only confined to leader, the spillover and knock-on effects of CAP are essential for rural communities. It's equally important to ensure that the CAP supports the incomes and viability of small family farms and supports the attractiveness of farming to ensure the next generation of farmers. And I'd like to just reference part-time farmers to a lot of people, certainly from an Irish perspective, that there isn't that same viability in farming that was there in previous generations, so it's led to a lot of part-time farmers. It's important that they are included in relation to CAP as well, because it is something I suppose that, you know, it's been spoken about.
We do obviously want to preserve. It there is a danger there. Farmers have been very clear in telling us and setting that out. We need to be listening to what people are actually telling us. That's our job here as representatives, and I will leave it at that, Chair.
Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mr. Paulo.
You, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. The fact is this.
is an essential document also for developing our rural regions. There's a great deal of synergy here between farming and regional development. This is something that we can't ignore. We have to be aware of the role that farmers play in looking after territories. This is important for territorial cohesion.
It was clear that the funding that was adopted for the MFF by the European Parliament was very ambitious. The CAP is a dual pillared policy. It has significant funding, and it was we approved millions more than the commission had even approved. This is for the agricultural sector. And then it's important that the 7 over 7 million that are ring fenced for Posei have been allocated and earmarked for this because it's important for our regions.
And there's also the additional funding that will specifically help with our response to climate change and the damages caused by extreme weather events. So it's very important that we continue to maintain this funding. And I'd like to thank the rapporteur for all the work, because I feel that from what we've heard here today, we're in a very good position to continue to work in regional development. But we also need to mention once again the LIDAR and PASAI funds, which are very important for our regional development. The ECA said that PASAI was very important for regional development.
These are programs that work, that are specific to these regions, and they should be maintained. And I'd also like to make a proposal here. The categories that are defined for regional development should actually include one more. We categorize according to regional development. But for outermost reasons, according to article 349, we take into account the distance, the level of population, and so on.
So I think that a new category should be added so that we can take into account the outermost regions. And I'd also like to add a point on the new generations. This is in line with and ties into the cohesion policies. We need young people in these regions. And for that, we need infrastructure, education, health care, because only then will we have integration in these territories.
And so we'd like to propose investment in transport because that will help integration in the single market. We need robust infrastructure. And in that way, we won't leave anyone behind, and no region will be left unprotected. So I'm very happy with the work that we will do in this committee.
Raymond Booth
Sorry. There was a small change. It's not mister Imand but. It's Mr. Bensa Major, but I think that will not cause a lot of trouble. He had the.
Raymond Booth
minute appointment. Very briefly, it was very interesting to listen to the various points that were raised. I think I heard that indeed this proposal is crucial. The commission completely agrees with that because agriculture, as we see it every day when we open the news, is facing tremendous challenges. Rural areas are also facing tremendous challenges.
The commission proposal recognizes this crucial importance of agriculture and rural areas. And I heard the term specificity mentioned. I think it's a very valid point that is raised because we all agree that agriculture and rural areas are indeed special, and they need somehow special treatment to address the challenges that they are facing. This is well recognized in the commission proposal. At the same time, I mean, nobody can dispute that although we have certain common challenges, the responses need to be adapted, and this was also very much recorded during the various interventions.
So it's logical that while we ensure certain basic principles at EU level, you need also to give space. You need flexibility for the various member states, for the various regions, to find answers which are adapted to their situation. This flexibility is at the core of our proposal on the budget because what we see in the current programming period with the two pillars, which often contain the very same instruments or with issues which can be, in fact, tackled via a very high number of different funds, of different policies that we need flexibility. We need to bring it together in a single fund, but in a single fund that is extremely flexible, at the same time ensuring a certain minimum ring-fenced amount for agriculture. Another very important point, which came back very often in your interventions, is the need to have a strategic approach because it was mentioned for autonomous regions.
It was mentioned for the leader indeed. I mean, the issues that are faced by our regions and member states often are very much interlinked. There are very important synergies in tackling the problems of outermost regions or tackling the problem of climate change or natural disasters. Therefore, instead of having no cap strategic plan, which is, to a certain extent, limited, the commission proposal contains a much broader planning process in which all these issues, farming, rural development, all the other territorial issues will be tackled together. And we firmly believe that it is more efficient like that.
Thank you very much.
André Rougé
Jeb. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their contributions. Thank you for what you've said today and also what you sent through by way of amendments. From what I've seen in the amendments and what I've heard today, I'm pleased to see that there's something of a consensus among us. That leads me to believe that we will be able to create to draft a report that everyone will be happy with, all our farmers will be happy with.
Our farmers feel that they are not being treated correctly. They have been taking to the streets. Even here in Brussels, we've heard them. We've seen them. Farmers nowadays feel the pressure of the rising fuel prices.
This is especially true in our outermost regions, whether they're French, Spanish, or Portuguese regions. Often, unfortunately, the farmers in these regions feel that they've been forgotten by the European Union. Then we need to adapt our norms for our farmers. I completely agree with what my colleague, Mr. Dinasci Mentou, said. We need to have younger farmers.
We need to make sure that they are able to stay where they are. And for that, we need to maintain the cap and po sai for the outermost regions. It is crucial farming, whether it's in Madeira, the Azores, in the Canary Islands, in the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, or Latin America, farming is a major profession. Sugar, bananas, whatever it may be, there is unfair competition. And so it is, therefore, essential that we maintain, if not reinforce.
I'd like to conclude by referring to something that happened in the sixteenth century in France under Louis the XIV. His prime minister Maximilian and he had decided to declare that farming was a pillar of French society. I hope that we can also ensure that is true today. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. I would like to remind you that regio opinion on the common agricultural policy will be adopted at our meeting on 15 July. In ten minutes, we continue with the coordinator's meeting here. And at half past two, we resume our meeting with an exchange of view with Vadim Boichenko, mayor of Mariupol, Ukraine. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.