Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting

Name: Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting
Uploaded: 2026-07-15T07:00:00+00:00
Duration: 10917 s

05:38 - 17:52

Dragoş Benea

Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 30. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. We're going to amendment 336. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. 329. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. Compromise 32. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 409. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. Check. We start the vote. We close the vote.

Adopted. It's adopted. We're going to compromise 39. Who's in favor? Against?

Adopted. We're going to compromise 39. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Abstention?

Adopted. Compromise 40. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Compromise 41. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Going to amendment 443. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Check. We start the vote. We close the vote. Rejected. Compromise 1.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number 2.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number 3.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 4.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 76.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. Compromise number 5.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? I think it's adopted. Check.

We close the vote. We open the vote, sorry. We close the vote. It's adopted. Compromise 6.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. Compromise 8.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. 144.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. 146.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. 154.

Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 14, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Amendment 176, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

178, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Check. The vote's open.

The vote's closed. Adopted. Compromise 15, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Amendment 187, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

Compromise 16, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 198, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. Compromise 17, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 217, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. 218, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

218, the vote's open. The vote's closed. Adopted. Compromise 18, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 222, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Compromise 19, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

Compromise 20, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 21, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 22, who's in favor? Against?

Adopted. Amendment 246, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Check.

The vote's open. The vote's closed. Rejected. Compromise 24, who's in favor? Against?

Amendment 266, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. 19, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. 268, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. 269, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. 270, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. 271. The vote is open. The vote is closed.

Rejected. 272 who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

273 who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. 274 who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Checked. The vote is open. The vote is closed.

Adopted. 275 who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

276 who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. 277 who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. So we now proceed to the final vote by roll call vote. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. Adopted. We are now moving to the vote on the draft opinion on establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the common agriculture policy for the period from 2028 to 2034. During the work on the opinion, 546 amendments have been tabled, of which 41 compromise amendments and 41 alternative compromise amendments will be put to the vote. Before we move to the vote, I give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. Rougé.

17:52 - 22:02

André Rougé

Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Nous sommes enfin arrivés au bout d'un long processus de rédaction et d'amendement de ce rapport. Et bien évidemment, je voudrais commencer par remercier les rapporteurs fictifs et vous remercier tous pour votre implication sur ce sujet capital pour l'avenir de l'agriculture européenne qui nous tient tous à cœur. Je pense aussi évidemment aux agriculteurs vis-à-vis desquels nous nous sommes engagés et pour lesquels nous avons un devoir moral et une obligation de résultat. Je voudrais remercier également le secrétariat pour sa disponibilité et sa compétence et les collaborateurs des groupes qui n'ont pas compté leurs heures pour nous assister.

L'esprit de ce rapport est clair. Il s'agit de répondre aux attentes du monde agricole, à ses interpellations et à ses angoisses. Il s'agit d'y répondre au moment où la Commission européenne propose de créer des plans de partenariat nationaux et régionaux, les fameux PPNR, et de fusionner au sein d'un même fonds des politiques aux objectifs très divers dans le cadre du prochain cadre financier pluriannuel 2028-2034. Alors, au-delà de nos divergences politiques, un large consensus s'est dessiné au sein de notre commission sur la reconnaissance des dangers d'un tel projet.

Danger pour la PAC comme pour la politique de cohésion qui se trouvait inéluctablement engagée dans un processus de concurrence malsaine pour l'obtention des fonds. Il me semble que nous nous sommes finalement bien compris quant aux buts et aux orientations de ce rapport. Comme je l'ai toujours souhaité, il est tout entier dicté par la seule recherche de l'intérêt général, en l'occurrence celui de nos agriculteurs qui sont garants de la souveraineté alimentaire de l'Europe. Des agriculteurs dont tant vivent hélas, et nous le savons bien, dans la précarité et la détresse. Je ne vais pas revenir à ce stade sur les principes qui paraissent s'imposer pour maintenir une politique agricole commune ainsi qu'une politique de cohésion indépendante, puissante et conforme à l'intérêt collectif de nos pays.

Ils ont fait l'objet de nombreux débats et d'un travail de fond de la part des membres de cette commission. Je les remercie à nouveau pour leur engagement dans ce dossier. Permettez-moi un mot concernant plus particulièrement le programme d'options spécifiques à l'éloignement et à l'insularité, plus connu comme le POSEI. Ce dispositif est conçu pour soutenir l'agriculture dans les régions ultrapériphériques. Et je suis très heureux d'avoir eu l'occasion de mieux faire connaître les problématiques très particulières de nos régions ultrapériphériques françaises, espagnoles et portugaises, qu'il s'agisse de la Guadeloupe, de la Martinique, de la Guyane, de la Réunion, de Mayotte, des Açores, de Madère et des Canaries.

Elles souffrent toutes de l'éloignement des grands centres décisionnels européens et leurs agricultures très spécifiques requièrent une particulière attention. Mes chers collègues, ce rapport sera évidemment transmis à la commission AGRI qui a le dernier mot en matière agricole. Je suis sûr qu'elle prendra le temps de nous lire et d'intégrer nos préoccupations à ses propres réflexions. Je m'en remets à la sagesse de cette assemblée en vous redisant combien j'ai été fier de pouvoir contribuer avec vous à améliorer le cadre d'intervention de la politique agricole commune dans un moment particulièrement difficile pour elle, mais aussi dans un moment où nous voyons bien que nous avons plus que jamais besoin de sécurité et de souveraineté alimentaire. Je vous remercie.

22:02 - 41:41

Dragoş Benea

Thank you very much. Let's start the vote with compromise number one. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. We're going to compromise number one alternative.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number two.

Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected. The vote is open.

The vote is closed. Rejected. We're going to compromise number two alternative. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention?

Adopted. We're going to amendment 185. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. Compromise number three. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.

Going to compromise three alternative. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

Compromise number four. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. The same score, 10 to 28. It's rejected.

Going to compromise number four alternative. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

Compromise number five. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

The vote is open. Adopted. Going to compromise number six. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number seven. Who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number eight. Amendment 41. No?

Compromise eight. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

We're going to amendment 327. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Check 327.

The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. 328, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. Compromise nine, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise amendment 370. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Check.

The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. 371. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. 372. Who's in favor?

Check what? 371? I think it's adopted, but 371, the vote is open. The vote is closed. It's adopted.

372. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

377. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

378. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

Compromise 13. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Compromise 16 alternative. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. 447. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 18. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. The vote is open. The vote is closed.

Rejected. Compromise 19 alternative. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. 593. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. Compromise 20. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. Amendment 43, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

376, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. 60, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. 375, who's in favor? The vote is open.

The vote is close. Compromise 24. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Rejected. Going to... The vote is open. The vote is close. Rejected.

Compromise 24 alternative, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 547, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. 548, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. 549, who's in favor? Against? Amendment 71, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 72, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Rejected. 505, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. 73, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Rejected.

507, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. 74, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention?

Adopted. 506, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

Compromise 27, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 469, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. 470, who's in favor? Against?

Abstention? Adopted. 76, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?

Adopted. 78, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.

77, who's in favor? 79, sorry. Amendment 79, sorry. Who's in favor? Against?

Adopted. Compromise 39, who's in favor? Against? The vote is open. The vote is closed.

Rejected compromise 41 alternative, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 190, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Adopted. 142, who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Rejected. 141. Who's in favor?

Against? Abstention? Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed.

The vote is closed. Rejected. The vote is closed. Adopted. Our next point on the agenda is the presentation of the draft report on the regulation establishing the European Fund for Regional Development, including for European territorial cooperation and the Cohesion Fund as part of the fund set out in the NRP regulation and establishing conditions for the implementation of the Union support to regional development from 2028 to 2034.

I now give, I will now give the floor to the co-rapporteurs for this file, Mr. Arimont from EPP and Mr. Marcos Ros Sempere from S&D, so that they present their draft text. Mr. Arimont, you have the floor. Mr. Arimont, you have the floor for five minutes.

41:41 - 51:47

Pascal Arimont

Merci beaucoup. Ja, vielen Dank. Bevor die Kollegen jetzt in den Sommer aufbrechen, möchte ich die Gelegenheit nutzen, dieses, diesen Bericht vorzustellen, den der Kollege Marcos Ros Sempere und ich jetzt in den letzten Wochen und Monaten vorbereitet haben. Und als allererstes möchten wir beide uns glaube ich dafür entschuldigen, dass der Bericht bzw. die Abänderungsvorschläge so spät erst hier im Hohen Hause eingereicht werden konnten. Das hat damit zu tun, dass wir das wirklich bis auf den letzten Drücker noch vor der Sommerpause machen wollten.

Das hat auch dazu geführt, dass die Kollegen, die als Schattenberichter hier arbeiten, den Bericht gestern erst erhalten haben. Ich weiß, dass das für die Arbeit dann nicht wirklich einfach ist, das einschätzen zu können, was wir hier vorgestellt haben. Wir haben insgesamt 122 Abänderungsvorschläge zu dem, was die Kommission vorgestellt hat, eingereicht, darunter teilweise seitenlange Artikel neu definiert, so dass es meiner Meinung nach den Kollegen eigentlich unmöglich ist, ihre Beurteilung heute abgeben zu können. Die wirkliche Diskussion wird, so glaube ich, dann im September stattfinden, wenn die Kollegen dann die Tragweite unserer Abänderungen gesehen haben, verstanden haben und einschätzen konnten. In diesem Sinne auch noch mal eine Entschuldigung dafür, aber ich glaube, es ist wichtig, dass wir das heute vorstellen, damit wir ab September wirklich zusammen an diesem Text auch arbeiten können.

Ich werde mich deshalb auch auf die Grundprinzipien dessen eigentlich beschränken, ich habe ja auch eigentlich nur noch vier Minuten Zeit, die unsere Abänderungsvorschläge dann auch hier definieren.

Und als Erstes muss gesagt werden, dass wir uns die Arbeit nicht leicht gemacht haben. Es geht tatsächlich hier um 200, fast 250 Milliarden Euro für den EFRE. Es geht um fast 50 Milliarden für den Kohäsionsfonds und um mehr als 11 Milliarden für Interreg. Das ist sehr viel Geld, was in den nächsten sieben Jahren in Projekte in der EU investiert werden soll. Und deswegen müssen wir uns die Mühe machen, den Text so zu definieren, dass er danach auch funktioniert und dass die Projekte, die damit finanziert werden, auch funktionieren.

Deswegen ist es uns wichtig, und das war immer Leitgedanken, Leitgedanke unserer Arbeit, dass wir in dem, was wir in den nächsten sieben Jahren machen wollen, dass die Regionen, die die Leute, die diese Projekte definieren, dass die Verwaltungsbehörden, dass die Nationalstaaten in dem Sinne eine gewisse Rechtssicherheit erhalten, wenn wir diesen Text dann hier im Ausschuss und danach im Plenum und danach im Trilog fertig verhandelt haben. Die Kommission hatte einen anderen Ansatzpunkt, hat sehr wenig Text definiert, hat immer auf den NRP-Text verwiesen und dementsprechend haben wir uns die Dinge anders oder wir haben die Dinge anders gemacht. Wir haben in unsere Texte, in unsere Fonds, die wir hier zu bestimmen haben, die ja die Zeilen definiert, die Artikel definiert, die Kriterien definiert. Wir haben uns die Mühe gemacht, also all das, was eigentlich vorher immer der Fall war, auch diesmal wieder zu definieren, sodass diese Rechtssicherheit entstehen kann. Sie werden das lesen, das sind 122 Abänderungsvorschläge, in denen wir das versuchen.

Die zweite, zweite Grundprinzip, was wir einführen wollten, ist, dass wir entgegen dem, wie die Kommission es eigentlich in dem nationalen Plan vorgesehen hat, dass wir die Rolle der Regionen bei uns sehr gestärkt haben. Im NRP-Bericht wird das schon angelegt in dem Sinne, dass ein Nationalstaat oder die nationale Ebene belegen muss, dass die regionale Ebene einbegriffen worden ist in der Projektplanung. Wir gehen da einen Schritt weiter. Wir geben den Regionen quasi Verhandlungsbefugnis mit der Kommission. Sie dürfen dieses Regional Chapter definieren, sie dürfen es aushandeln und die nationale Ebene darf in dem Sinne dieses Regional Chapter einreichen.

Und wenn es es abändert, muss es vorher die Autorisation, die Genehmigung durch die Region dort anfragen. Das alles immer nur dort, wo das in den Ländern in Verfassungen oder in Spezialgesetzen so angelegt ist. Wir führen also nichts ein, was es nicht schon gab, sondern wir bestätigen das, wie es eigentlich gelebte Praxis bisher war. Aber wichtig ist uns zu sagen, dass die Regionen diese Entscheidungsbefugnis haben sollten. Es ist Regionalförderung und dementsprechend müssen die Regionen auch ihr Wort zu sagen haben.

Der dritte Schwerpunkt ist, dass wir bei den Kriterien nicht die 28 Kriterien, die im NRP definiert worden sind, alle übernehmen. Wir übernehmen das, was für unsere Fonds wichtig ist, und wir lassen aber auch da die von der Kommission gewollte Flexibilität auch zu. Ganz besonders wichtig für uns ist, dass Projekte in Sachen Klimaschutz gefördert werden, dass Sachen, Projekte in Sachen Wettbewerbsförderung dort besser bedient werden, dass die digitale Infrastruktur gefördert werden kann, aber auch, und das ist neu, dass in Sachen Verteidigung Projekte damit finanziert beziehungsweise kofinanziert werden können. Wir haben uns auf keine klassische thematische Konzentration eingelassen. Wir haben uns die Dinge da auch nicht einfach gemacht.

Uns war es viel wichtiger, teilweise in regionalen Dimensionen zu denken, das zu fördern, spezifisch zu fördern, was uns sehr wichtig war.

Das ist zum einen die städtischen Gebiete, das war schon drin, das bestätigen wir noch mal, weil städtische Gebiete drin stehen, war es uns wichtig den regionalen, den ländlichen Raum dort spezifisch anzuführen, dort auch eine 10 % Mindestquote einzuführen, dass wir die Leute, die in ländlichen Räumen wohnen, das sind 30 % in der EU, dass wir diese nicht vergessen und dass wir auch da spezifisch sagen, das ist ein Gebiet, wo wir investieren müssen, das dürfen wir nicht vergessen. Und dann ein Thema, was im Parlament und ich glaube mittlerweile auch im Rat ein Dauerthema geworden ist, das Thema Housing, Wohnungsnot wollen wir adressieren, indem wir sagen, dass 10 % der Projektgelder in das Thema fließen müssen, in öffentlichen Wohnungsbau und auch da ein Schwerpunkt darauf, dass wir da auch energetisch sanieren. Das ist uns wichtig und wir haben auch Antispekulationsklauseln eingeführt, dass man europäisches Geld nicht nimmt, um es danach teurer verkauft zu kriegen, das haben wir auch definiert. Ich glaube, das ist eine sehr gute Idee und ich glaube, das ist ein parteiübergreifendes Thema, was wir auch hier in diesen Förderkriterien dementsprechend angehen. Ein Letztes, wir haben auch in Anlehnung an Restore und in Anlehnung an dessen, was im Moment in Europa passiert, dass es ganz viele Naturkatastrophen gibt und geben wird, das ist sehr schade.

Wir möchten aber auch mit den Mitteln des ERDF hier ein Zeichen setzen und sagen, dass sehr schnell Geld in die Regionen fließen kann, dort wo eine Naturkatastrophe stattfindet und dass dieses Geld auch so eingesetzt wird, dass man dort resilienter aufbaut, um auch den Leuten, die von dieser Naturkatastrophe betroffen sind, Perspektive und Hoffnung zu geben. Das haben wir mit Restore gemacht, das führen wir jetzt als grundsätzliches Prinzip hier mit 10 % Maximalförderung ein. Warum haben wir das gemacht und dann werde ich auch meine Rede beenden und an den Kollegen Ros Sempere weitergeben. Warum ist es uns so wichtig, dass wir zum einen diese Rechtssicherheit haben wollen, zum anderen den Regionen diese Entscheidungsbefugnis an die Hand geben wollen? Wir sind der Meinung, dass diese Fonds anders als die RFF-Fazilität zu behandeln sind.

Die RFF-Fazilität, da hatte man so ein wenig den Eindruck, dass die Kommission das hier auch machen wollte mit der Regionalförderung. Das war ein Instrument, um auf eine Krise zu reagieren. Wir haben es aber hier mit langfristigen Investitionsprogrammen zu tun, die funktionieren anders, die sind regional verankert, dort gibt es Leute, die sich seit Jahrzehnten kennen und wir sind der Meinung, dass die Probleme am besten in den Regionen bekannt sind und am besten in den Regionen gelöst werden können. Deswegen ist dieser regionale Ansatz uns extrem wichtig. Wir würden gerne dafür kämpfen auch im Trilog, dass wir diesen Ansatz dort durchkriegen, gemeinsame Kriterien definieren, um einen europäischen Mehrwert in diesen Projekten zu sehen und auch eine gemeinsame Kontrolle darüber ausüben zu können, was bei der RFF-Sache, glaube ich, Anlass für große Kritik geben.

Alles in allem, glaube ich, haben wir versucht Regionalpolitik so zu definieren, wie es vorher schon war. Wir haben versucht flexibler damit umzugehen, das im Sinne des Kommissionsvorschlags, aber dass die Grundprinzipien bleiben, wie sie waren, denn das was gut funktioniert, sollte man auch nicht kaputt machen. Ein letztes Wort als Dank, ein Dank an meinen Kollegen Ros Sempere, mit dem ich wirklich hervorragend die letzten Wochen zusammengearbeitet habe. Das war von großer Einigkeit geprägt und wir hoffen, dass die Kollegen das danach auch so sehen. Ich möchte aber auch allen Teams danken, die daran mitgearbeitet haben, meinem persönlichen Assistenten Patrick für die stunden-, tage-, wochenlange Arbeit, die in diesen Texten reingesteckt worden sind und Sie werden es lesen danach, es ist sehr, sehr viel Text, um aber das zu schützen, was schützenswert ist und das ist die Regionalpolitik, wie wir sie kennen und wie wir sie verteidigen.

Vielen Dank.

51:47 - 51:49

Dragoş Benea

Thank you, Mr. Lamberts.

51:49 - 51:53

Speaker 6

Mr. Marcos Ros Sempere, the floor is yours.

51:53 - 01:00:08

Marcos Ros Sempere

Gracias, presidente, colegas. Hoy presentamos en esta comisión un informe legislativo que es fundamental y además en el que he tenido el honor de poder trabajar con el corraporteur Pascal Arimont y también con los equipos del secretariado y de ambos ponentes. Y a medida que nos vamos acercando a la pausa del verano en nuestro calendario, creo que es un momento idóneo no solo para presentar el detalle de unas medidas, sino también para recordar qué es exactamente lo que nos estamos jugando con este informe para los próximos meses y para los próximos años. Porque la política de cohesión no es una mera partida contable más en los presupuestos de la Unión Europea. La cohesión no es caridad ni es un mero mecanismo de transferencia económica.

Es realmente el pegamento del proyecto europeo, es nuestra principal bandera social y es la expresión más tangible de la presencia de la Unión Europea en el día a día de cada uno de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Y por eso tenemos que ser claros a la vez que tenemos que ser prudentes, porque estamos ante uno de los debates más delicados y más importantes del proyecto europeo. Porque si como algunos están sugiriendo últimamente, reducimos la cohesión o caemos en la tentación de centralizarla, lo que estamos haciendo es tirarnos piedras en nuestro propio tejado. Porque esa miopía de gestionar estos fondos exclusivamente desde las capitales rompería el principio de gobernanza multinivel y alejaría Europa de los ciudadanos. Las regiones, las ciudades y los municipios no pueden ser meros ejecutores de decisiones que toman otros y las decisiones son siempre más acertadas cuando se toman más cerca de los ciudadanos.

Y para garantizar que estas decisiones sean reales, hace falta financiación. Y como decía recientemente un ministro en mi país, las prioridades de cada uno se demuestran en los presupuestos de cada año, porque una política sin recurso, bueno, pues no dejaría de ser una declaración de intenciones. Así que la propuesta que hoy traemos busca preservar una política de cohesión real, fuerte y que sea capaz de cambiar las cosas. Y para blindarla, seguimos manteniendo las cifras que recogía la posición del Parlamento aprobada en el mes de abril. Hablamos de 248.000 millones de euros para el fondo FEDER, casi 47.000 millones de euros para el fondo de cohesión y más de 11.500 millones de euros para Interreg, que son recursos indispensables para asegurar que las grandes transformaciones que vive Europa sean una palanca de oportunidades compartida para todos los territorios y no solo objetivos que se vean factibles desde unos lugares y muy lejanos desde otros.

Para lograr este objetivo de cohesión, de igualdad territorial, hemos situado un elemento estructural en el corazón de nuestra propuesta y que responde a una crisis y a una emergencia que hay ahora mismo en la Unión Europea, y es la vivienda. Atravesamos una crisis habitacional sin precedentes y precisamente por eso estamos proponiendo una medida de inversión en vivienda pública protegida también sin precedentes. Y lo que proponemos es que al menos el 10% de los recursos del FEDER y donde sea aplicable el de cohesión se destinen específicamente a vivienda pública asequible y sostenible, lo que se traduciría en aproximadamente 25.000 millones de euros para que servirán para reforzar y ampliar el parque público de vivienda que tienen las regiones, ayuntamientos y estados a lo largo de la Unión Europea.

Y también hemos propuesto que se pueda utilizar el FEDER para la renovación energética de edificios con una cláusula antiespeculación. Es decir, los propietarios que accedan a estas ayudas para renovar sus edificios no podrán vender los inmuebles en los años, en los 10 años siguientes o si los venden tendrán que devolver estas ayudas para evitar que el dinero vaya a subir el precio del parque inmobiliario. Además estamos proponiendo también un 13% para el desarrollo urbano sostenible e integrado porque estamos firmemente convencidos de que es en las ciudades donde se concentran los mayores retos climáticos y de desigualdad y que tenemos que dotar a las ciudades de un presupuesto suficiente y seguro. Y al mismo tiempo no nos olvidamos del tejido rural, del territorio rural y garantizamos también un 10% de apoyo a ese desarrollo rural para combatir el reto demográfico, mejorar la conectividad y asegurar la viabilidad económica de nuestros territorios rurales y de nuestros pueblos. Y hay quienes están todo el rato hiperventilando diciendo que hay que modernizar la política de cohesión y nosotros les damos la razón, pero les damos la razón con argumentos y con propuestas de enmiendas a la propuesta de la Comisión.

Los partidarios de la política de cohesión lo llevamos tiempo diciendo y por eso este informe también adapta, se adapta a las urgencias de nuestro tiempo e incorporamos nuevos desafíos estratégicos, permitimos inversiones en seguridad con un enfoque exclusivamente de doble uso, garantizando que este esfuerzo repercuta también en la competitividad, en el desarrollo industrial y tecnológico. Y también seguimos apostando por Interreg como una herramienta para difuminar nuestras fronteras cada vez más y trabajar unidos como ese bloque que somos. Incorporamos también la novedad de poder utilizar el fondo FEDER para las catástrofes, pero ojo, con una cláusula muy importante: solo en aquellos casos en que reconstruir signifique reconstruir mejor, hacer infraestructuras más resilientes a las catástrofes que van a venir cada vez más. Colegas, hoy el texto que presentamos hoy no es un documento cerrado. Muchos de vosotros vais a proponer enmiendas y nosotros, tanto mi compañero Pascal Arimont como yo, estaremos encantados de trabajar para analizarlas, para integrarlas y para mejorar la propuesta.

Pero como decía al principio, ahora que se acerca esta pausa de verano, os pido que utilicéis el tiempo que se da para las enmiendas estas semanas en las que seguro vais a pasar por vuestros territorios y por vuestras regiones para preguntar a vuestros alcaldes, para preguntar a vuestros actores locales. Preguntarles si quieren ver la cohesión reducida, eliminada o mezclada con otras prioridades, reinterpretada o recentralizada, en definitiva, arrebatada. Verán la enorme inquietud que supone la simple idea de que los actores locales se queden sin política de cohesión. Verán que para nuestros territorios la política de cohesión representa básicamente la Unión Europea que de verdad funciona y la que permite que la ciudadanía sienta este proyecto a veces tan lejano y tan abstracto y es la que realmente les aporta ayuda en su día a día. Y quién en su sano juicio iba a reducirla precisamente ahora cuando las fuerzas euroescépticas están en ascenso.

Acabo ya. A la vuelta en septiembre retomaremos el trabajo para dar forma definitiva a este proyecto y cuentan, estoy seguro, con mi compañero Pascal y conmigo mismo para dialogar, para negociar y para lograr el mayor consenso posible. Y termino sobre todo agradeciendo al equipo de Pascal, a mi equipo, al secretariado, el intenso trabajo de estos meses para llegar aquí hoy con un texto sólido al que nos habría gustado entregárselo unos días antes para que tuvieran más tiempo para analizarlo, pero ha sido realmente un trabajo muy intenso. Nada más, muchas gracias y abierto a sus comentarios y sugerencias.

01:00:08 - 01:00:29

Dragoş Benea

Thank you very much. We I now give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs, two minutes and a half each. And we start with Mrs. Klára Dostálová, if she's here. Is not here. We continue with Mr. Denis Nesci from ECR.

01:00:29 - 01:03:58

Denis Nesci

Grazie Presidente. Colleghi, come anticipato già il collega relatore, abbiamo ricevuto la bozza solo ieri, quindi mi limito a fare alcune osservazioni preliminari, ovviamente mi riserverò poi di fare un'analisi più approfondita in sede di presentazione degli emendamenti. Come sapete abbiamo fin dall'inizio come gruppo espresso alcune riserve sul nuovo impianto normativo e sugli impatti che questo può avere sulla politica di coesione. Ovviamente riteniamo condivisibile il, diciamo, l'obiettivo che ha la Commissione, semplificare e migliorare le performance. Tuttavia però non vogliamo che questo si traduca in un'eccessiva centralizzazione.

Pertanto riteniamo necessario che ci siano alcune garanzie solide, soprattutto per rafforzare il ruolo delle autorità locali e regionali nelle procedure. Per questo ci limitiamo, diciamo, in questa fase a dare alcuni spunti, fermo restando che la bozza che è stata trasmessa va su alcune cose nella giusta direzione. Ma volevo velocemente fare delle analisi su alcuni punti. Innanzitutto sulla governance. Troppi aspetti essenziali vengono rinviati ad atti di esecuzione che attribuisce quindi alla Commissione un margine di discrezionalità secondo noi eccessivo.

Noi riteniamo che gli elementi principali debbano essere inseriti nel regolamento nel pieno rispetto del ruolo dei co-legislatori per garantire una certezza di diritto. Il secondo punto riguarda la cooperazione territoriale Interreg, come anche mi sembra di aver capito il collega Marcos. L'autonomia va bene, ma servono sinergie finanziarie reali con i programmi ordinari e che tutelano le specifiche anche di alcune parti del territorio, come per esempio le frontiere marittime rispetto a quelle terrestri. Il terzo aspetto sono i target ambientali. Il sistema dei pagamenti collegato ad obiettivi rischia di diventare eccessivamente rigido.

Fissare una quota orizzontale al 43% per il clima è irrealistico, quindi soprattutto se partiamo da un dato che si attesta sotto il 35%. Quindi va bene andare verso questo obiettivo, ma serve flessibilità perché altrimenti si rischia di perdere i fondi. Vado alla conclusione ribadendo un altro aspetto per noi importante, che noi difendiamo il pre-finanziamento al 14%, respingiamo la riduzione proposta.

Allo stesso modo riteniamo che la nuova regola del disimpegno N+10 mesi sia eccessivamente penalizzante, quindi vorremmo mantenere una disciplina più vicina all'attuale N+3 o N+5 per evitare il rischio concreto che si possano perdere le risorse. Noi come al solito avremo un approccio positivo, parteciperò con grande interesse e volontà di costruire insieme con voi un file che sia più vicino alle esigenze dei territori e ai bisogni dei nostri cittadini. Grazie.

01:03:58 - 01:04:03

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. Mrs. Raquel García Hermida-Van der Walle from Renew.

01:04:03 - 01:07:21

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, dear rapporteurs, Pascal, Marcos. Thank you so much for bringing this. As I've told both of you, I, in all honesty, I have not had much chance to look at everything in detail. This is because it came very late.

I've also understood that that it came late is because you have done a lot of work to improve the the proposal of the Commission, so I really appreciate that. And it's summertime, so let's not be angry at one another about times and deadlines. Anyway, I'm very happy that we are able to discuss this very important topic. I think that we all agree here that the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and Interreg are at the very core of the European project. For Renew, these are important priorities because we believe that our Union will be at its best when everyone and every region can benefit from the major economic progress it brings to our continent.

Because the Union was built on the principle of solidarity, and therefore we believe that no region should be left behind, because our economies and the daily lives of Europeans are intertwined, and we will build the best Union humanity has ever created only when we understand that regional development and competitiveness are deeply linked with one another. This Union, which we imagine and see, is a Union where no matter where you are born, you will lead a good life, that you will lead a life you choose to live, and that includes the right to stay. These are quite groundbreaking ideas in world history, and to keep bringing them into practice, we have the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, and Interreg. And we want to transform our communities with these funds, and therefore we have a major responsibility in this committee to defend these funds and to improve them. And this is why I bring here three priorities for Renew, which I hope that can be brought on board up until the finish line.

First, we need to radically simplify the way these funds work. And I'm not saying to make it easier for the Commission or the national capitals, I'm saying we make it easier for the people on the ground, the final beneficiaries, those people who work with the funds and see the effects of the funds, as Marcos just said, in their daily lives. We also need to update our priorities, and I've heard a couple of very good things in the presentations, because we can and we should use these European funds for the challenges Europe faces today. And that means to modernize, sin i-per-ventil-ar Marcos, just modernize, while leaving the solutions to today's European issues with the people best positioned to give them, and that is at local and regional level. And three, our third priority, genuine partnership with the people on the ground, because they know best.

And if there is a single file in this Parliament we're dealing with right now where this needs to be front and center, then this is it. I'm really looking forward to starting working on amendments and the negotiations, and I am very confident that on this file we can reach a very broad support which reflects all of our priorities.

01:07:21 - 01:11:15

Rasmus Andresen

Yes, thank you so much also to the rapporteurs for the long-awaited report. And I also don't want to spend too much time for that, like in summertime as the colleague already said, but I just want to stress that of course with, and this is fully, fully understandable, it took a bit time for you to present the report. Now there is much more pressure for us to write the amendments and to read all the details. And this during summertime actually, especially also during green weeks where we all have appointments in our constituencies also on this topic for example, but also our staff maybe is not, not working as much as they are doing in meeting weeks. I also think that things like the deadline we need to, to talk about and to reconsider and to see if there are some possibilities to get a bit more time to work on the amendments.

Overall on the content what I saw until now on the report, we can really support the general approach of the report. I think it's very good to see that the draft would like to strengthen the ERDF and Interreg with different elements and also with most of, of the priorities. I think that indeed we can, we can build, build a strong compromise and then the fight will be with the Council on all of these elements. For us very important are the social aspects. I really like that you included not just language but also dedicated amounts on housing.

I really think that is the right approach. I think we will table some additional amendments here, but the approach in general I think is a very good thing. Secondly on the mainstreaming targets, we also like of course the language when it comes to green spending, but also here we would like to go further. And if you're looking in the regulation in the current MFF for example on the exclusion of fossil fuel projects, we will put some amendments forward because we think that we need some more clarity also in the regulation here. And there I think your report, if I didn't, yeah, maybe I didn't saw it, but otherwise I think this is not really covered and this is something we would like to follow up on.

On defense and security, we think that the language in the report doesn't really strike the right balance. I mean it's definitely much more important than it had been like five or six years ago, full agreement with that. But striking the right balance and especially also to broaden a bit the security aspects, not just talking about defense projects would be important for us. The same is true for the role of SMEs, which we think should be mentioned a bit more so that the, that the ERDF really is concentrated on SMEs and not so much big business and the possibilities there. So we will also definitely table some amendments there.

And then some topic which is close to my heart, but I know also to the heart of some other colleagues working on, on this file, is the issue on minorities, traditional national minorities, where also would, will table some amendments and where hopefully we, where I hope we can, we can find some good compromises. On Interreg, just very briefly, the small project fund we like a lot, so that's really great to see that covered. But we will also table some more amendments also on simplification because I think that the arguments Renew already came with is completely true and for programs like Interreg even much more. So thanks for the draft and looking forward to our collaboration.

01:11:15 - 01:14:44

Kathleen Funchion

Thank you, Mrs. Kathleen Funchion from the Left.

Thank you, Chair, and again like others have said, thanks to our rapporteurs. It's good to see the draft report and I thank them for all their work in relation to it.

And I think it's also fair to say that we have a rewrite of the Commission proposal which was completely necessary because we only had the bare bones to work with. So coming from I suppose the Irish perspective and a developed country as the definition insists, the ERDF is our main regional fund and it's obviously of great importance. And along with Interreg, I think it's important that it's the public face of EU assistance to our infrastructure and it's important that we get it right. So also as an Irish MEP I want to focus on the PEACE PLUS. I welcome the Commission's proposal in as far as it contains PEACE PLUS, but we really do need to put a figure next to that.

That happened in the previous term. The rapporteurs have bravely put in figures for the main divisions, so figures for PEACE must also be included because my fear and the fear of a lot of people is without a specific allocation, many fear that it will end up underfunded and that there will be a lot of goodwill towards PEACE PLUS but not actual figures behind it, which we all know is what we need. Simplification also must be at the forefront of the next MFF and making the fund easier for beneficiaries. That's essential, we all know that from our day-to-day work. And it's important then for people to get that added value from the EU funds if it was made simpler.

Sometimes I think the Commission, their proposal makes life easier for them but not necessarily for people who are trying to draw down the funds. And then just in a broader sense, I think it can be improved in parts with greater focus on island regions, including some of the Member States. And something I want to hone in on as well and focus on is the ERDF should be allowed to tackle intra-regional imbalances. So we all know how in certain regions the status and the stats of one particular city's GDP can distort a whole region. That sometimes happens in my own region in the South-East in Ireland.

And areas with linguistic groups, for example, need bespoke approaches including on housing. That's coming from the Gaeltacht housing perspective in Ireland too. And in general, I'm glad to see some good amendments in relation to housing and I welcome that. We can potentially go further as well in relation to tackling dereliction. That's a big issue I would imagine in most of our regions as well and it's sometimes one I think that we don't focus enough on in relation to housing supply in an efficient way.

And then I also welcome investment in the youth and urban initiatives that are very, very important to all of us I would hope, but particularly to myself as well, and areas around disability. I just want to strongly oppose though any militarisation of the ERDF and the Interreg. You know, this is not a NATO and Irish taxpayers' contributions should not be spent on defence. And I think it's really important that when we're talking about this issue, if people are talking about increasing, you know, funds towards militarisation, then who is going to lose out? And it's important that anyone that is advocating that position spells out which fund and who exactly they think should lose out because we only have one pot of money and it should not be being spent in anything related to militarisation.

There's a lot of work ahead, but I think we're in good hands and I want to again thank the rapporteurs for their work in relation to this. Thank you, Chair.

01:14:44 - 01:14:48

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. Mrs. Steier-Heil-Bozdorf from ESN.

01:14:48 - 01:16:11

Irmhild Boßdorf

Ja, vielen Dank. Als letzter Redner kommt mir immer habe ich immer so ein bisschen das Schicksal, dass alles schon gesagt wurde, aber noch nicht von jedem. Drei, vier Aspekte möchte ich trotzdem ganz kurz erwähnen. Wenn wir über die Stärkung der Regionen sprechen, dann werden wir uns sehr dafür einsetzen, dass auch Deutschland diesmal zum Zuge kommt, denn Deutschland ist das einzige Land in der EU mit einer schrumpfenden Wirtschaftskapazität im Moment. Also ich glaube, da haben wir auch einen großen Bedarf, dass auch Deutschland endlich von diesen Regionalfördermitteln profitiert.

Wir gehen natürlich 100 Prozent mit bei einer Vereinfachung. Allerdings müssen wir dabei auch vermeiden, dass diese Vereinfachung damit verbunden ist, dass das Ganze noch weiter zentralisiert und noch weiter gesteuert wird. Also das Geld muss wirklich in den Regionen und bitte auch in deutschen strukturschwachen Regionen ankommen. Ich gehe absolut mit, dass wir nationale Minderheiten stärken müssen, dass wir Jugend stärken müssen, aber bitte wir sollten auch bedenken, auch die Familien im ländlichen Raum müssen gestärkt werden, damit die dort eine Zukunft haben und damit der ländliche Raum eben auch für Familien in Zukunft ein lebenswerter Raum ist. Und auch bei der Verteidigung, das haben wir ja mehrfach herausgestrichen, gehen wir nicht mit.

Wir wollen nicht, dass Mittel aus den Regiemitteln dann für eine sogenannte Kriegstüchtigkeit der EU aufgewandt werden. Vielen Dank.

01:16:11 - 01:16:28

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. We will now proceed to the catch-the-eye session with one minute per intervention and we start with Mr. Hetman from EPP.

01:16:28 - 01:18:44

Krzysztof Hetman

Dziękuję bardzo, panie przewodniczący. Ja chciałbym bardzo serdecznie podziękować i pogratulować kolegom takiego bardzo zdroworozsądkowego podejścia do kwestii Interregu. Chciałbym podziękować za takie bardzo pragmatyczne podejście oraz wsłuchanie się w głosy, szczególnie organizacji samorządowców. Ponieważ to, co koledzy zaproponowali, wychodzi absolutnie naprzeciw oczekiwaniom i potrzebom władz lokalnych, do których Interreg jest przede wszystkim skierowany, do organizacji pozarządowych. I naprawdę z tego się cieszę, bo jak w ostatnim czasie w tym Parlamencie mamy deficyt zdrowego rozsądku, to obaj moi koledzy tutaj aż nadto włożyli pracy i takiego bardzo pragmatycznego podejścia i wsłuchania się w głosy wszystkich zainteresowanych tym programem.

I jestem absolutnie przekonany, że w kolejnej perspektywie finansowej wszyscy beneficjenci Interregu dzięki pracy naszym kolegom będą się cieszyć z wielu zrealizowanych projektów, na które bardzo czekają. I chciałbym jedną rzecz wyjaśnić na koniec, ponieważ ciągle się na naszej komisji pojawia ten aspekt związany z militaryzacją polityki spójności, także jeśli chodzi o Interreg. Chciałbym powiedzieć, że Interreg nie będzie finansował produkcji czołgów, armat i samolotów. Nie będzie. To jest tutaj jest wpisana możliwość kwestii obronności szeroko rozumianej, także infrastruktury dual-use, co oznacza, że będzie można realizować na przykład drogę bądź miejsca schronienia dla ludności cywilnej, które w czasach pokoju będzie można wykorzystać na dom kultury czy halę sportową.

Zapamiętajcie to w końcu i przestańcie powtarzać te fałszywe treści związane z militaryzacją polityki spójności, bo to jest nieprawda. Na koniec jeszcze raz serdecznie gratuluję kolegom świetnie wykonanej pracy. Dziękuję.

01:18:44 - 01:20:35

Ciaran Mullooly

Mr. Mullooly from Renew.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteurs for the work they've done. This funding is significant to a constituency like my own with approximately 396 million euro coming in last time round with Cohesion, Interreg, ERDF funding, and then being supported by funding in the member state bringing it to 853 million euro. So in principle it's working well, but when you look at it closer up, particularly in the northern and western region where I've looked at it, there is a two-speed approach to the situation. Our cities are progressing, but many parts of the area are still lagging, yet they are considered to be developing. So there's an issue there which has been raised by colleagues that needs to be addressed when we distribute the funding.

I would say crucially, with regard to Interreg funding, the PEACE PLUS issue must be resolved. We cannot have staff and programs in a state of uncertainty as they do not know what's going on in terms of program renewals or contract renewals. It's unfair on people who are trying to plan the program over the future years. A couple of comments on what the rapporteurs did say. I'm impressed by the talk of dealing with speculators in the housing market.

I sit on a special housing committee which has failed abysmally to deal with that issue. Our commissioner talked a great game in housing about dealing with speculators, so I look forward to Marcos and Pascal and others dealing with this and bringing forward meaningful measures, because we haven't had them from the housing committee. As I say, a lot of work to be done. I will support you in any way I can over the coming days as we prepare for the support on this issue. But it's crucial at the end of the day that we deal with the finance for the regions in particular, make sure the money gets to the regional assemblies and goes to the correct and the proper projects.

Thank you.

01:20:35 - 01:20:40

Speaker 17

Thank you. We continue with Mr. Stakis from Greens.

01:20:40 - 01:20:46

Speaker 21

Sorry, can you give me two minutes? Maybe in the last speaker, okay?

01:20:46 - 01:20:52

Speaker 19

Okay, we continue with Mr. Buda from EPP.

01:20:52 - 01:22:51

Daniel Buda

Vă mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule președinte. Mulțumesc raportorilor și celor care au intervenit pe marginea acestui dosar. Cu toții suntem animați până la urmă de crearea unui mecanism care să poată să fie utilizat la un nivel adecvat de către beneficiarii din statele naționale, astfel încât să vedem efectele benefice ale politicii de coeziune. Și în același timp aș ridica o problemă pe care trebuie să o avem în vedere atunci când discutăm despre eficiența acestei acestor politici până la urmă. Și m-aș duce și aș spune că epicentrul succesului sau garantarea succesului acestor politici este legat de o chestiune foarte importantă și anume locurile de muncă pe care trebuie să le aibă cetățenii acolo unde ei trăiesc.

Doamna Ursula von der Leyen ne spunea la un moment dat că toată lumea trebuie să aibă dreptul de a rămâne acasă. Vor rămâne acasă atâta vreme cât au un loc de muncă bine plătit. Vom putea să facem investiții eficiente atâta vreme cât o să reușim să creăm locuri de muncă unde ei să poată să fie bine plătiți. Citeam ieri un articol din țara mea, într-o regiune minieră, unde sute de locuințe sunt goale astăzi, deoarece nu mai este cine să le populeze. Sunt și eu membru Comisia de locuințe, știu care sunt provocările pe acest palier, dar acei oameni de acolo au plecat pentru că nu au avut niciun fel de perspectivă să rămână acolo.

Iată de ce avem o mare provocare pentru noi de a duce acest acești bani până la urmă în acele zone unde putem să garantăm că avem locuri de muncă bine plătite și în același timp sigur o mare provocare pentru noi cei care suntem și în Comisia AGRI de a preveni depopularea zonelor rurale. Dar sunt absolut convins că cei doi raportori, coraportori împreună cu noi, cu amendamentele care le vom depune, vom reuși să avem acest să atingem aceste obiective, deoarece sunt extrem de importante pentru noi de a putea garanta cetățenilor Uniunii Europene dreptul de a rămâne acasă. Mulțumesc.

01:22:51 - 01:22:55

Speaker 18

Thank you. We finish catch-the-eye section with Mrs. Walsh from EPP.

01:22:55 - 01:23:59

Maria Walsh

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our two rapporteurs for their work on this report. I particularly welcome the inclusion of the 10% rural target. Many colleagues have already mentioned that. Given the Commission's original proposal to do away with this dedicated rural development pillar of the CAP, it's really important that areas don't lose out. I think we all know in this room and a few others that over 80% of our EU is rural, and we need funding to reflect these community needs and spent closest to the ground.

I want to raise the importance of continued dedicated funding for Peace Plus program as an Irish MEP, of course representing a constituency that's very attached and aligned to Northern Ireland. I see the differences program is making, local business support, improving shared public services, environmental projects, the list goes on, but ultimately bringing communities closer together is the essence of Peace Plus. It has played a vital role in the reconciliation of the island and we hope in turn they will come back into the EU at some point, but this plays that important role and that commitment shouldn't be weakened after 2027. So thank you very much.

01:23:59 - 01:24:25

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. I want to check if Mr. Matthias Ecke is here. No. Mr. João Oliveira, yeah, the next one, yeah. I ask you about Mr. Matthias Ecke.

No. We continue with Mr. João Oliveira from the EMPL committee.

01:24:25 - 01:27:22

João Oliveira

Thank you, chair. I speak in Portuguese. Quero começar por saudar os relatores pelo draft que apresentaram relativamente a este regulamento do Fundo de Desenvolvimento Regional e do Fundo de Coesão. Julgo que é importante que haja uma definição de regras específicas destes fundos que suportam a política de coesão, não permitindo que essa regulamentação seja desviada para a regulamentação dos planos nacionais e regionais de parceria. Na perspetiva da Comissão de Emprego e Assuntos Sociais, parece-nos importante sublinhar alguns aspetos no trabalho que temos pela frente.

Em primeiro lugar, a necessidade de considerar o desenvolvimento regional em toda a sua amplitude, com uma forte expressão da dimensão social, sobretudo garantindo a disponibilidade dos fundos europeus para investimentos essenciais à coesão social e económica. E consideramos que é absolutamente essencial que haja uma preservação da consideração específica das regiões ultraperiféricas. A necessidade de apoiar setores produtivos e as pequenas e médias empresas, visando a criação de emprego, o investimento na habitação acessível, a garantia de acessibilidade universal a serviços públicos de qualidade, na educação, na saúde, nas redes de apoio a crianças, idosos e pessoas com deficiência, são aspetos absolutamente essenciais para assegurar a coesão social e que, particularmente, devem poder contar com a mobilização dos fundos do FEDER e do Fundo de Coesão. Parece-nos também importante que as regras de concentração temática e as taxas de cofinanciamento sejam definidas de forma adequada aos objetivos de desenvolvimento regional e da coesão social, económica e territorial. Esse é, de resto, um aspeto em que é possível introduzir melhorias face à regulamentação hoje existente.

Por fim, queria sublinhar um aspeto que tem que ver com a classificação das regiões. Nas situações em que a reclassificação das regiões tenha um impacto de redução dos fundos, devem prever-se regras que amorteçam essa redução dos fundos, nomeadamente fixando um limite. Por outro lado, os atuais critérios de classificação das regiões não refletem possíveis assimetrias internas dentro de cada região, nomeadamente incluindo realidades sociais e laborais diferenciadas, focos territoriais assimétricos de atividade económica dentro da mesma região ou condições desiguais no acesso ao emprego e aos serviços públicos. Parece-nos que deve prever-se a possibilidade de uma região ser classificada no nível de desenvolvimento imediatamente inferior àquela que resultaria da aplicação da regra do PIB per capita. O exemplo da região do Alentejo em Portugal é talvez um dos exemplos mais evidentes dessa necessidade.

01:27:22 - 01:27:40

Dragoş Benea

Mrs. Jana Toom from the ENVI committee is here?

No. We'll continue with the representative of the Commission, Mr. Peter Berkowitz, Director for Policy at DG REGIO, to take the floor. Mr. Berkowitz, the floor is yours for three minutes.

01:27:40 - 01:31:52

Peter Berkowitz

Yes, well, thank you very much. And I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the rapporteurs already for having made a lot of progress on the opinion. And I also take note of the fact that further work will be ongoing. So I will restrict myself to some general considerations. I think the first thing is that there's a clear signal about the importance of regional policy.

And I think we recognize the emphasis that you put on regional policy, its territorial dimension, and the introduction of more details on issues such as the right to stay, innovation, and transformation. Now, as you know, one of the key objectives of the proposals under this MFF for the NRPs and the fund-specific regulations was to provide Member States with greater flexibility to tailor measures to their national and territorial needs, to have a stronger local dimension, and also at the same time to simplify implementation and ensure simplification, in particular for beneficiaries, through a single rulebook. Now, I think it's very important that we keep sight of this idea of simplification and that we do not introduce amendments which run counter to this objective. And a multiplication of different rules across fund-specific regulations can potentially do this. So I would really encourage you to be attentive to this.

I think that while we are very sympathetic to many of the ideas you have about reinforcing partnership, it would be worrying if we had different rules for partnership across different fund-specific regulations. A second issue is the introduction of eligibility rules. I think we think that this is a major step forward in simplification. Getting rid of the eligibility rules that beneficiaries have to follow, that managing authorities have to apply, and to shift towards a performance-based system which has a simpler set of requirements is a step forward. And therefore we would caution against anything which introduces a large number of new rules and implies controls across the system.

I would make the same reflection for earmarking. As you have heard, we think that it's very important to have greater flexibility in the future to address evolving priorities. But at the same time, if we have too many earmarkings, this will reduce the flexibility of different areas to adapt to their specific needs. We got rid of thematic concentration in the existing period precisely for these reasons, because many regions said to us, there are so many different, let's say, boxes that we have to tick, that it becomes impossible to actually do something which is region-specific. Now finally, the last area which I would just like to highlight as a potential risk is the duplication of provisions between the NRP regulation and the fund-specific regulations.

Here, I mean, there's a legal drafting issue, but perhaps more importantly, there is the risk of divergence. And here again, we really think it's important to have a clear set of rules for the people who are responsible for implementing the programs. Now on Interreg, we very much welcome the very pragmatic approach taken by the rapporteurs in relation to the regulatory provisions. The key element here is continuity, the ability for the stakeholders in Interreg to continue. I think this was always the intention of the proposal, and therefore we are always happy to discuss suggestions, amendments which go in that direction.

We note, take note that the, like the Council, there is an idea here to move legislation from the implementing act into the body of the regulation itself. We continue to consider that the implementing act is useful and helps us adapt if necessary. So perhaps just to summarize, I think we think this is a very good start and very happy to work with the rapporteurs and the committee as necessary and provide any help we can.

01:31:52 - 01:31:53

Thank you.

01:31:53 - 01:32:04

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. And finally, I give the floor to the co-rapporteurs, Mr. Arimont or Mr. Marcos Ros Sempere, who wants to start?

01:32:04 - 01:36:12

Muchas gracias, pues señor presidente. Yo solo quiero dar las gracias a todos los compañeros, especialmente a los ponentes en la sombra que van a trabajar tanto con Pascal como conmigo, pero también al resto de diputados y diputadas que han hecho sus aportaciones al debate esta mañana. Y creo que hay un amplio consenso en esta comisión, como lo hay desde el primer día en que empezamos a trabajar en esta legislatura y sobre todo como lo hay desde el primer día en que conocimos aquella filtración que por desgracia se ha convertido en realidad de la Comisión Europea en la que pues se pretendía poco menos que eliminar y desaparecer la política de cohesión fundida y fusionada con otras prioridades como la agricultura, la defensa, el turismo y la pesca y sobre todo recentralizada en ámbitos nacionales. Así que yo creo que es una oportunidad ahora muy grande, sobre todo una vez que conocimos esta propuesta que venía de la Comisión Europea en la que el fondo FEDER, el reglamento del fondo FEDER, del fondo de cohesión e Interreg era solo un reglamento nominal en el cual FEDER y cohesión solo se citaban en el título porque no había un solo artículo que desarrollase provisiones para implementar estos fondos. Y respecto a la última intervención por parte de DG REGIO y por parte de la Comisión Europea expresaba sus reservas sobre un earmarking, una asignación de recursos excesiva.

Yo le diré que solamente hay un 33% de los recursos que están asignados previamente, es decir, un 10% para el objetivo rural, un 10% para el objetivo de vivienda y un 13% para el objetivo de ciudades de desarrollo urbano sostenible. El 66% del FEDER y del fondo de cohesión, dos tercios del FEDER y del fondo de cohesión no están asignados. Por lo tanto no hay ninguna, ningún riesgo de asignación excesiva y de poner todo el dinero en cajas para que no se pueda flexibilizar o no se puedan adaptar los objetivos a lo que quieren las regiones y quieren los estados miembros que van a desarrollar la política. Y además son tres objetivos que hemos asignado, preasignado en los cuales prácticamente toda la Unión Europea tiene problemas. Toda la Unión Europea tiene ciudades, todas las regiones tienen ciudades y áreas urbanas que modernizar, que adaptar al cambio climático, que adaptar a los nuevos retos de la modernización digital y de la sociedad.

Todas las regiones prácticamente tienen algún territorio rural al que atender y que tiene problemas de reto demográfico y de servicios y de acceso a los servicios primarios, básicos, educación, sanidad, conectividad a que atender para evitar que nuestros ciudadanos no puedan vivir donde han nacido, que es lo que está pasando. Y toda la Unión Europea tiene un problema de vivienda ahora mismo. Por lo tanto no creo que sea ninguna duplicación excesiva. Y el otro, el otro riesgo que había o que se o el otro inconveniente que plantean desde la Comisión Europea era la duplicación con los planes nacionales. Este básicamente ha sido el problema por el cual o el problema, el inconveniente por el cual hemos tenido que retrasar tanto la presentación de este informe para una vez analizada la propuesta que había de los NRRP, una vez más o menos miradas las el proceso de enmiendas, las 6.000 enmiendas que ha habido a los NRRP, adaptar el reglamento de FEDER para que lo que haga sea desarrollar lo que se dicen en esos NRRP.

Pero básicamente lo que hemos hecho es concretar los objetivos, porque no queremos que se mezcle la política de cohesión con otras políticas y por eso lo que hemos hecho es de los objetivos tan amplios de las decenas de objetivos que plantea los NRRP, el FEDER y el Fondo de Cohesión atenderán solamente a unos objetivos específicos de esas posibilidades y los hemos desarrollado. Por lo tanto, creo que hemos hecho un trabajo serio, coherente, que evita duplicidades, que evita un excesivo earmarking y sobre todo que devuelve a las regiones el papel que nunca debieron perder con la propuesta que vino por parte de la Comisión Europea. Gracias.

01:36:12 - 01:40:04

Pascal Arimont

Ja, vielen Dank. Ich möchte mich auch bedanken für diese konstruktive Diskussion. Ich glaube zwischen den Zeilen und von den Kollegen gehört zu haben, dass jeder damit einverstanden ist, dass man verstärkt regional entscheidet und das nicht auf der nationalen Ebene belässt. Ich glaube, das ist common sense, wie man so schön sagen würde. Daran werden wir auch festhalten und versuchen, das auch mit dem Rat zu verhandeln.

Was das Earmarking angeht, so kann ich auch das wiederholen, was der Kollege Ros Sempere gerade gesagt hat: in Städte oder in ländliche Räume investieren gibt es ja jetzt schon, es ist ja nichts Neues. Das macht ja jedes operationelle Programm, das wir im Moment ausführen, ja auch schon. Es ist also keine thematische Konzentration, sondern eher entweder in Stadt oder in ländliche Gebiete investieren. Und da kann man ja thematisch dann flexibel die Dinge, die Ziele definieren, wie man sie gerne hätte. Wir haben das einzige wirklich thematische, was wir definiert haben, war das Thema Housing.

Alles andere ist flexibel zu handhaben und da sehe ich kein Problem. Für mich war es aber wichtig, den ländlichen Raum tatsächlich mal in den Text so auch reinzubringen, da wo kein Arzt, kein Bankautomat, kein Kindergarten, kein Job in der Nähe, kein Einkaufszentrum, keine Internetverbindung ist. Das müssen wir dort aufbauen, damit die Leute da wohnen bleiben. Und wie gesagt, der ländliche Raum ist derjenige, wo wir tatsächlich einen Fokus drauf haben müssen und wo die Regionen die besten sind, die das auch einschätzen können. Deswegen war uns das wichtig, das auch so zu sagen.

Und zu Interreg habe ich eben tatsächlich gar nichts gesagt. Das ist etwas für mich, was so selbstverständlich ist, weil ich es vorher schon verhandelt habe. Aber Interreg ist tatsächlich ein Programm mit einem enormen europäischen Mehrwert. Ich selbst wohne in einer Grenzregion. Aus dieser Grenzregion ist eine Gemeinschaftsregion geworden, gefestigte Strukturen, Leute, die sich über die Grenzen hinweg kennen, die zusammenarbeiten, die zusammen Probleme lösen.

Extrem wichtig. Und da möchte ich auch zum einen sagen den Leuten aus Irland für das PEACE PLUS Programm, da werden wir uns natürlich dafür einsetzen, dass all das, was Sie zu dem PEACE PLUS gerade gesagt haben, auch im Trilog, dass wir dort das reinverhandelt kriegen. Also ich bin da absolut auf Ihrer Seite. PEACE PLUS ist im Interreg-Programm ja auch noch mal so ein Sahnehäubchen, was wir wirklich verteidigen müssen, was einen großen Mehrwert dort in dieser Region gehabt hat und was wir tatsächlich dann auch mit einem Betrag festlegen müssen. Und letztes, eines meiner Lieblingsprojekte ist der Small Project Fund im Interreg-Programm.

Kleine Projekte grenzüberschreitend für den Fußballverein oder den Musikverein, der über die Grenze ein Fest mitorganisiert. Man hat uns gebeten, wir sollen Vereinfachungen bringen. Ich habe die Idee mal ganz einfach mit Marcos da reingepackt. Früher musste man für ein solches Formular oder man musste 50 bis 60 Seiten ausfüllen, um so ein 15.000 Euro Projekt zu beschreiben. Wir haben jetzt mal in den Text reingeschrieben als Idee, das darf nicht mehr als zwei Seiten sein.

Ich glaube, dann wäre ganz vielen Projektträgern, die hoffentlich Projektträger werden, geholfen, wenn sie da nicht seitenweise beschreiben müssen, was sie für 15.000 Euro im anderen Staat machen wollen. Das ist so eine Idee. Ich hoffe, wir finden viele solche Ideen, damit wir das tatsächlich als als Grundidee in unseren Text reinkriegen, dass Regionalförderung, Kohäsionspolitik extrem wichtig ist und sie kann auch nur dann funktionieren, wenn sie einfach funktioniert, wenn sie auch flexibel funktioniert und wenn sie dort entschieden wird, wo man das am besten entscheiden soll, und das ist in unseren Regionen. Vielen Dank.

01:40:04 - 01:41:37

Dragoş Benea

Thank you very much. Now I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is 3 September at noon. 84 AM will become available as soon as the draft report has been translated into all languages. The secretariat will inform you by email once the application is open. Before closing this point, I have a short message to convey.

According to the Conference of Presidents' decision of 12 March 2026, Parliament shall not engage in any informal discussions or inter-institutional negotiations, whether technical or political, on any MFF file until the Council has adopted full mandates. We're going to next point, number seven, to the consideration of the draft report on cohesion policy, the driving force in implementing the European Union agenda for cities. The EU agenda for cities is a strategic policy framework for sustainable and integrated urban development. And now I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. Denis Nesci from ECR, to present his draft report. Mr. Nesci.

01:41:37 - 01:46:57

Denis Nesci

Grazie Presidente, colleghi. Le nostre città sono il cuore economico, sociale e produttivo dell'Unione Europea. Lì vivono tre quarti dei cittadini europei e si concentrano le sfide più urgenti, ma è anche lì che c'è la necessità di dare risposte innovative all'altezza delle trasformazioni che stiamo vivendo. Come relatore, la mia volontà è quella di costruire un testo frutto di un lavoro condiviso. Per questo ho promosso uno shadow meeting prima di redigere la redazione, con l'obiettivo di ascoltare e recepire fin da subito le istanze principali dei gruppi.

La gran parte di queste priorità è già confluita nel documento, altre potranno essere sviluppate nella fase emendativa, tenuto conto dei limiti di testo cui era sottoposta la relazione. Il punto di partenza è naturalmente la proposta della Commissione, che delinea la nuova agenda europea per le città. Si tratta di un documento ampio e articolato che intendiamo integrare con una visione politica chiara. E possiamo farlo partendo dagli importanti risultati già ottenuti, a partire dalla revisione di medio termine della politica di coesione, che ha dimostrato come una maggiore flessibilità possa consentire di orientare le risorse verso settori strategici e prioritari, soprattutto alla luce delle emergenze situazioni, come per esempio gli alloggi, la competitività, l'energia e la resilienza per rispondere alle crisi. Un'esperienza positiva sulla quale dobbiamo continuare a costruire.

Ma oggi dobbiamo compiere un passo avanti sul piano della governance. Le città non possono essere solo esecutrici finali delle decisioni, ma devono diventare protagoniste della definizione delle politiche. Per questo intendiamo rafforzare la dimensione urbana nell'attuale proposta sui piani nazionali e regionali di partenariato e di conseguenza chiedere un coinvolgimento reale, strutturato delle autorità locali.

Tra le priorità del testo ne evidenzio alcune. La prima è la questione abitativa. È oggi una delle principali sfide dell'Unione Europea. Sosteniamo il piano europeo per gli alloggi a prezzi accessibili e il diritto di poter scegliere se rimanere nel proprio territorio, il right to stay. Oggi ogni cittadino infatti deve poter scegliere dove vivere, lavorare e costruire il proprio futuro proprio a partire dal luogo che chiama casa.

Garantire alloggi accessibili, servizi di qualità e opportunità economiche significa contrastare lo spopolamento, l'esclusione sociale, il declino demografico, sostenendo i giovani e le famiglie e il ricambio generazionale. Poi la sicurezza urbana è una questione cruciale sia reale che percepita. La qualità della progettazione, la presenza di spazi pubblici accessibili e sicuri, un'illuminazione adeguata e trasporti efficaci cambiano la vivibilità di un quartiere. Garantire la sicurezza significa promuovere la coesione sociale e tutelare le categorie più vulnerabili, a partire dalle donne che troppo spesso sono vittime di aggressioni. Una città sicura è un presupposto fondamentale per la libertà di tutti.

La terza riguarda innovazione e competitività. Sosteniamo l'uso di tecnologie avanzate e dell'intelligenza artificiale per migliorare i servizi, ma con una condizione chiara: l'innovazione deve restare al servizio delle persone. Un approccio antropocentrico per migliorare concretamente la qualità della vita dei cittadini capace di mettere la persona al centro. Infine la relazione punta a rafforzare la capacità amministrativa delle città, in particolare quelle piccole, medie, insulari e rurali che incontrano maggiori difficoltà nell'accedere ai fondi europei. A questo proposito abbiamo voluto proporre che la piattaforma europea per le città evolva in un vero e proprio sportello unico europeo capace di offrire informazioni, assistenza tecnica, supporto alla progettazione e condivisione di buone pratiche per semplificare le procedure ed aiutare i comuni a trasformare le proprie idee in progetti concreti, senza dimenticare ovviamente le grandi città e le loro specifiche esigenze.

Naturalmente tutto questo richiede risorse adeguate. Per questo chiediamo che in vista del bilancio post-27 la dimensione urbana sia adeguatamente finanziata e che gli Stati membri dimostrino maggiore ambizione nell'allocazione delle risorse nel futuro QFP con un chiaro livello di earmarking, che è la riserva dei fondi destinata a tale obiettivo. È un aspetto cruciale su cui non credo ci siano divisioni. Colleghi, con queste, queste sono diciamo la sintesi delle priorità che avevo intenzione di annunciare oggi. Ovviamente ascolterò con attenzione tutti gli aspetti e tutte le proposte che arriveranno da voi con la sicurezza di poter fare insieme un lavoro importante che possa garantire quello che è stato detto sempre in premessa nello shadow meeting, cioè la volontà di concentrarci su uno sviluppo reale e un'azione concreta per le città e quindi per i cittadini.

Grazie.

01:46:57 - 01:47:06

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. We start the round of shadow rapporteurs, two minutes each. We start with Mr. Fredi Beleris from EPP.

01:47:06 - 01:49:18

Eleni Stavrou

Ευχαριστώ πρόεδρε. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, αρχικά θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον συνάδελφο τον κύριο Νέσι για το προσχέδιο της έκθεσης και τη συνεργασία του μέχρι τώρα. Προσωπικά θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στην κεντρική πρόκληση που θεωρώ ότι αντιμετωπίζουν οι ευρωπαϊκές πόλεις και πως κάποια επιμέρους ζητήματα συγκλίνουν σε αυτή.

Μέσα από τις συναντήσεις μου με ελληνικούς και ευρωπαϊκούς φορείς, η δημογραφική ανανέωση φαίνεται να αποτελεί την κεντρική πρόκληση. Η δημιουργία βιώσιμων και έξυπνων πόλεων που προσφέρουν σύγχρονες κοινωνικές υποδομές, ψηφιακές υπηρεσίες, ποιοτικές θέσεις εργασίας και ένα ασφαλές περιβάλλον για τις νέες οικογένειες είναι το ζητούμενο για τη δημογραφική αναγέννηση. Χρειαζόμαστε λοιπόν την ενίσχυση ενός φιλικού προς τις επιχειρήσεις και την καινοτομία περιβάλλοντος, το οποίο αποτελεί βασική προϋπόθεση για την ανταγωνιστικότητα και τη δημιουργία ποιοτικών θέσεων εργασίας. Παράλληλα, η στεγαστική κρίση που πραγματικά απορροφά το μεγαλύτερο μέρος των εξόδων των πολιτών, η οποία απαιτεί συντονισμένες ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές που θα ενισχύσουν την ποιοτική κατοικία και θα στηρίξουν τις οικογένειες. Επίσης, οι αλλαγές στις κλιματικές συνθήκες καθιστούν επιτακτική την αναβάθμιση των υποδομών αλλά και των εργαλείων πολιτικής προστασίας.

Χρειαζόμαστε τόσο σύγχρονο εξοπλισμό όσο και τη χρηματοδότηση νέων μελετών που θα ενισχύουν την ανθεκτικότητα των υποδομών απέναντι σε ολοένα συχνότερα ακραία καιρικά φαινόμενα, προστατεύοντας ανθρώπινες ζωές, περιουσίες και το φυσικό περιβάλλον. Ιδιαίτερη σημασία στο πλαίσιο των υποδομών έχει και η υιοθέτηση πολιτικών για τη διαχείριση των υδάτινων πόρων και των αποβλήτων με βάση τις αρχές της κυκλικής οικονομίας, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η ορθή χρήση των φυσικών πόρων και η ανθεκτικότητα των πόλεων στο μέλλον. Κλείνοντας, θέλω να τονίσω ότι πόλεις μικρού και μεσαίου μεγέθους στις νησιωτικές, παράκτιες και ορεινές περιοχές αντιμετωπίζουν ιδιαίτερες προκλήσεις και χαίρομαι που ήδη γίνεται αναφορά στο κείμενο. Σας ευχαριστώ και προσδοκώ σε μία εποικοδομητική συνεργασία.

01:49:18 - 01:49:23

Speaker 6

Thank you, Mr. Marcos Ros Sempere from S&D.

01:49:23 - 01:52:15

Gracias, presidente. Quiero empezar dando las gracias al ponente Denis Nesci por el trabajo en este informe. Yo como arquitecto y como urbanista, para mí es un debate que me toca muy de cerca. Siempre he defendido que la política europea más útil es la que se hace a escala humana. Es aquella política que aterriza en el entorno donde la gente desarrolla su vida cotidiana.

Y por eso celebro que la comunicación de la Comisión Europea con la Agenda Europea de las Ciudades reconozca al fin, por fin, el papel estratégico del mundo urbano. Las ciudades concentran, resumen, ejemplifican muy bien los retos de nuestra sociedad: vivienda, desigualdad, adaptación climática, convivencia. Y todos esos retos requieren un papel fuerte de lo público, de la administración pública de las ciudades. Es decir, si queremos que esta agenda que propicia la Comisión Europea tenga un impacto real y transforme nuestros entornos urbanos, este informe debe afianzar tres pilares que a mí me parecen fundamentales. Primero es la simplificación.

Reducir la burocracia europea ya no es un capricho. Es la única forma de garantizar que los ayuntamientos puedan dedicar su energía y sus recursos a hacer proyectos para sus vecinos y no a pelear con procedimientos interminables o a buscar entre las veinte direcciones generales de la Unión Europea que tienen asuntos urbanos. En segundo lugar, la gobernanza multinivel que sea real. Las ciudades no pueden ser solo tratadas como simples beneficiarios de fondos. Son socios necesarios y el diálogo que propone la Comisión Europea no es suficiente.

Yo como ponente del reglamento FEDER y del Fondo de Cohesión he insistido en algo claro: si las ciudades aplican nuestras políticas, tienen que tener presencia, voz και voto en la mesa que decide esas políticas. Y en tercer lugar, la financiación. La política más ambiciosa no funciona si no hay presupuesto.

Y la política de cohesión tiene que seguir siendo el gran motor de nuestras ciudades. Desde el FEDER ya estamos trabajando para blindar recursos urbanos y herramientas claves como la European Urban Initiative, el URBACT, que son fundamentales para la innovación. En definitiva, y acabo ya, necesitamos menos papeleo y más papel de lo público, menos ciudades como receptoras meramente de fondos y más ciudades como socios de primera división y menos declaraciones de intenciones y más recursos, porque apostar por mejorar nuestros entornos urbanos nos beneficia a todos y a todas las ciudadanas de la Unión Europea. Gracias.

01:52:15 - 01:52:25

Dragoş Benea

Mrs. Klára Dostálová is not here. We continue with Mr. Dan Barna from Renew.

01:52:25 - 01:54:02

Dan Barna

Thank you, thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Negrescu, for a very good start and for already taking on board some of the ideas raised during our first shadow meeting. So thank you. I appreciate the effort to integrate many important points within a limited number of words, and I will submit amendments to further strengthen and clarify them. Europe's cities are where ideas become businesses, where innovations meet opportunity, and where our economies, universities, and communities thrive.

They are not only places where European policies are implemented. They are where Europe's future is built and where cohesion is most strongly experienced. If we want a stronger, more resilient, and competitive Europe, we must empower our cities by recognizing them as key partners, ensuring access to adequate funding, and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy that slows down investment and innovation. Cities are also at the forefront of the green and digital transition. They are testing solutions, improving public services, and creating the foundation for sustainable growth.

We must give them the flexibility and tools they need to succeed. We also need to address the housing challenge, especially for young people and students, by supporting investment and increasing the supply of affordable homes. So in this, having these elements mentioned, I look forward to working with the rapporteur and shadow colleagues on a report that provides strong support to cities across all our regions and ensures that no city is left behind. Thank you.

01:54:02 - 01:54:05

Dragoş Benea

Thank you, Mr. Mārtiņš Staķis from the Greens.

01:54:05 - 01:55:36

Mārtiņš Staķis

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for the draft report. So let me start with my own experience. When I was a mayor of Riga, we were preparing for the recovery fund, and I collected the best ideas we had and went to the ministry. So they looked at my list, they said thank you, and gave me the new list of what the cities would be doing. And this is not how it should be.

And cities across Europe had the same experience. So today I hear many warm words about the cities. Everyone calls them as a key partners, but in the actual numbers of the next MFF, cities are almost invisible. There's a gap between what we say about the cities and what we give them. That is why I support the proposals of Eurocities, who have long been the strongest voice of the cities' interests.

The key one we should support is dedicated funding for cities through an urban innovation chapter in the European Competitiveness Fund. We do not need to hand all EU funds to cities, but a few percent decided by cities themselves would change a lot. Because in the end, it is cities that deliver so many of the priorities we agree on here.

01:55:36 - 01:55:39

Speaker 30

Thank you so much.

01:55:39 - 01:55:44

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. Mrs. Valentina Palmisano from the Left.

01:55:44 - 01:59:14

Valentina Palmisano

Grazie. Grazie Presidente. Anch'io ringrazio il collega Nesci per questo progetto di relazione che costituisce una base solida di lavoro e che tocca numerosi punti di grande interesse. Ne citerò soltanto qualcuno. Il focus sul rafforzamento del ruolo delle città in tutte le fasi del processo decisionale, il richiamo al principio cruciale del diritto di restare per i nostri giovani, il rafforzamento della capacità amministrativa dei nostri comuni.

Solo ieri parlavo con alcuni consiglieri del comune di Avellino che mi dicevano che il loro problema non è tanto l'esistenza o meno dei fondi europei, ma la capacità di sfruttare al meglio questi fondi europei perché hanno delle carenze non soltanto di personale, ma anche nella formazione del personale che possa, appunto, possano servire queste competenze per conoscere le opportunità europee e per utilizzarle al meglio. Credo che ci sia spazio in questo testo, come ha detto anche il relatore, per valorizzare ulteriormente il contenuto, appunto, di questo progetto partendo dalle cose concrete che servono alle nostre città. Attenzione alle periferie. Nei nostri emendamenti chiederemo più attenzione alle periferie anche per andare incontro all'esigenza di sicurezza dei nostri cittadini, ad esempio promuovendo dei quartieri vivi a tutte le ore con dei servizi coordinati nel tempo per evitare lo spopolamento e favorire anche una vigilanza sociale spontanea. A questo uniamo l'idea del green security grazie alla quale la forestazione urbana e la, come dire, cura partecipata del territorio diventano anche degli strumenti attivi e di comunità contro il degrado di certe aree delle nostre città.

Non possiamo non parlare dell'attenzione al clima. Basta asfalto su asfalto nelle nostre città. Dobbiamo fare interventi di de-impermealizzazione per evitare queste isole di calore, fare delle aree verdi dove, diciamo, ci sono degli alberi e dove la gente può anche passeggiare e trovare ristoro in queste estati così calde che stiamo vivendo. A questo accompagniamo la gestione circolare dell'acqua. Un'attenzione anche al contrasto alla povertà minorile.

Ad esempio proporremo dei finanziamenti stabili e strutturali per dei presidi socio-educativi gratuiti nelle aree più vulnerabili delle nostre, dei nostri quartieri, delle nostre città. Siamo preoccupati anche per l'insostenibile costo degli alloggi per i nostri studenti. Le famiglie non si possono più permettere di mantenere i loro figli perché non ci sono alloggi e se ci sono i prezzi sono intoccabili alle stelle. Ecco, i fondi europei devono essere utilizzati anche per andare incontro a queste esigenze e bisogna, ad esempio, recuperare il patrimonio pubblico dismesso per darlo a disposizione di questa esigenza e di questi studenti. Finisco dicendo che bisogna anche stare, diciamo, fare un ultimo riferimento allo sport.

La nostra proposta è riprogettare le troppe aree urbane dismesse abbandonate per trasformarle in centri di aggregazione accessibili a tutti. Quindi il diritto all'attività motoria per tutti, soprattutto per i minori, per i disabili, anche perché fare sport significa andare incontro all'esclusione sociale dei giovani. Grazie.

01:59:14 - 01:59:21

Speaker 31

Thank you. Now we move to the catch the eye session and we start with Mr. Hetman from EPP.

01:59:21 - 02:00:50

Dziękuję bardzo, panie przewodniczący. Chyba nikt nie ma wątpliwości co do tego, że miasta są motorami rozwoju i naszym podstawowym zadaniem tutaj jest zapewnić im fundusze w nowej perspektywie. Natomiast chciałbym zwrócić uwagę, że powinniśmy zrobić takie bardzo proste założenie. Nie możemy miastom mówić, włodarzom tych miast, społeczeństwu tych miast, na co mają wydać te europejskie pieniądze. I trzeba sobie powiedzieć jasno: każde miasto ma różne problemy.

One są często zbieżne, ale jedni potrzebują więcej przedszkoli, ktoś inny potrzebuje lepszego transportu, komunikacji publicznej, ktoś inny chce zrewitalizować obszary poprzemysłowe tak, żeby je na nowo gospodarczo otworzyć, a może jakieś miasto, które ma do tego warunki, ma ambicję do tego, żeby wybudować metro. Nie powinniśmy ich wyręczać w tym parlamencie w tym, co chcieliby zrobić. To oni powinni decydować o tym, na co chcą wydać te pieniądze i tym powinniśmy się kierować, dyskutując o tym, jakie wsparcie, jaki budżet i na co powinny miasta je otrzymać, także ta decyzyjność powinna być jak na najniższym szczeblu. Dziękuję bardzo.

02:00:50 - 02:01:02

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. We continue with Mrs. Antonella Sberna from ECR.

02:01:02 - 02:03:40

Antonella Sberna

Grazie, presidente. Vorrei intanto ringraziare il collega Nesci per per questo lavoro e penso che questa relazione sia un ottimo punto di partenza su un tema che tanti cittadini sentono, ma anche tanti di noi che arrivano dalle amministrazioni locali e regionali apprezzano e che, diciamo, il ruolo delle città gioca nelle grandi sfide, nelle grandi sfide europee. Tre quarti degli europei, come sappiamo, vivono nelle nelle aree urbane ed è lì che si concentrano, diciamo, le questioni urgenti, quindi la mobilità, l'abitare, la sicurezza, la transizione digitale. Apprezzo tantissimo l'attenzione alle città medio-piccole che spesso hanno meno risorse, meno personale, faticano, diciamo, di più nelle grandi accelerate o nelle grandi nell'accesso ai fondi ai fondi europei e sono una parte essenziale del tessuto europeo ed è giusto che l'Europa le sostenga, ne tenga conto e, appunto, lo faccia con strumenti pensati anche per loro e non solo per le grandi capitali, quindi l'attenzione alle dimensioni. L'altra parte è un grande apprezzamento, insomma, sapete la mia attività con altri colleghi nella commissione housing e trovare un alloggio a prezzi accessibili chiaramente è diventato molto difficile per le famiglie, molti giovani, con anche conseguenze pesanti sulla coesione sociale e sulla competitività dei territori e quindi i sindaci che conoscono meglio forse di chiunque altro questi bisogni e i bisogni delle comunità devono poter contare su strumenti adeguati per rispondere.

Bene anche l'idea di uno sportello unico sui fondi europei, penso che chiunque di noi abbia avuto questa richiesta non meno di centinaia di volte operando nei territori da cui proveniamo e quindi avere un punto di accesso unico che dia risposte e che parli di strumenti concreti penso sia importantissimo. E poi, ultimo punto, l'attenzione alla demografia che chiaramente è una delle sfide dei prossimi anni e quindi se vogliamo che i nostri giovani restino nei loro territori o scelgano di poter restare dobbiamo metterli nelle condizioni e questa rapporto di iniziativa con le idee che contiene e con le opportunità che ci vengono proposte anche sul banco delle riflessioni penso sia, diciamo, tenga conto anche abbia come presupposto anche l'attenzione allo sviluppo demografico. Quindi, diciamo, concludo dicendo che questa relazione contiene l'idea di Europa che che noi portiamo portiamo avanti, un'Europa dei territori, un'Europa di chi amministra quotidianamente e quindi, insomma, col collega, con i colleghi condividiamo questa visione e, appunto, considerateci a disposizione nel lavoro di di questo rapporto, insomma, a cui auguro veramente un'ottima riuscita. Grazie.

02:03:40 - 02:05:39

Daniel Buda

Thank you, Mr. Daniel Buda from EPP.

Da, mulțumesc, domnule președinte. Vin dintr-un oraș unde în fiecare an rămân aproximativ 4-5 mii de absolvenți de facultate și care doresc ca mai departe să-și continue viața în Cluj-Napoca. Vă dați seama ce înseamnă ca și presiune pe toată infrastructura pe care o avem la nivelul acestui oraș, plecând de la creșe, grădinițe, spitale, străzi și așa mai departe. Iată de ce subliniez necesitatea de a oferi posibilitatea orașelor să aibă acces la linii de finanțare în mod adecvat pentru a putea răspunde acestor nevoi. Pentru că tocmai că vrem să respectăm dreptul fiecăruia de a locui acolo unde dorește, în același timp trebuie să punem și la îndemână și instrumente financiare adecvate.

Și aș merge mai departe plecând și de la ceea ce înseamnă experiența din Comisia HOUSE și nu numai, vizavi de necesitatea de a crea mecanisme în vederea încheierii unor parteneriate public-private cu comunitățile din zonele metropolitane. Pentru că la un moment dat și acești primari au limitele lor, au nevoie să se dezvolte, au nevoie de resurse financiare pe care să le pună la dispoziția comunităților din zonele periurbane, în așa fel încât să putem să creăm, să spun așa, acel spațiu în care fiecare să poată trăi în mod adecvat. Și aș mai pune încă o accent pe o chestiune: pe necesitatea dezvoltării rețelelor de infrastructură de transport. Cetățeanul nu dorește să stea neapărat în centrul, nu știu, Barcelonei, că am fost în Barcelona sau în Lisabona, să nu dau exemplu orașul meu, dar are nevoie de un transport adecvat să poată să ajungă într-un interval de timp foarte scurt de la punctul A în punctul B. De aceea acest raport vine și subliniază aceste chestiuni.

Evident vom depune amendamente și eu cred că este foarte important, repet, să înțelegem că da, orașele au nevoi specifice și trebuie să le satisfacem din punct de vedere financiar pe acest palier. Mulțumesc.

02:05:39 - 02:07:27

Marko Vešligaj

Thank you. Now Mr. Valter Flego from S&D.

Thank you, Chair. I'll speak on Croatian. Poštovane kolegice i kolege, iza brojki o gospodarskom rastu često se kriju ozbiljne nejednakosti između naših regija i gradova. U Hrvatskoj iz koje dolazim čak 30 posto ukupnoga BDP-a ostvaruje glavni grad Zagreb. A 2023. godine Zagreb je bio tri puta razvijeniji od najmanje razvijene Virovitičko-podravske županije.

To nije zapravo uravnotežen razvoj, već jasan pokazatelj jedne duboke regionalne neravnoteže i činjenice da se kohezijskim sredstvima ne upravlja na način na koji bi se trebalo. Dodatno zabrinjavaju jednostavno ne pravedni kriteriji za dodjelu sredstava čime se dodatno kažnjavaju one sredine koje imaju najmanje kapacitete. Zato mislim da je ključno da se držimo i snažnu i samostalnu kohezijsku politiku na europskoj razini, posebice to važno reći u okviru ovih razgovora i pregovora koje imamo oko novoga višegodišnjega financijskoga okvira, jer kada nju u potpunosti prepustimo državama članicama, mislim da taj prostor za nejednakosti i za loše upravljanje postaje postaje još veći. Ovaj primjer iz Hrvatske mislim da to i te kako jasno pokazuje. I ako želimo stvarnu koheziju, trebamo postaviti pravednije kriterije i dati gradovima stvarnu ulogu u odlučivanju.

Jer mislim da bez ove ravnoteže između gradova i regija, između urbanoga i ruralnoga, nema niti održivoga koncepta europskoga razvoja.

02:07:27 - 02:07:28

Hvala.

02:07:28 - 02:09:52

Gordan Bosanac

Thank you. And the floor to Mr. Gordan Bosanac from Greens.

Thank you, Chair. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a good first draft of the proposal. And it's really important that us as a REGI committee are the ones who are taking care on the future of the cities and the position of cities in European Union. I mean, as far as we go, still European Union is a union of 27 member states. It's not a union of 800 and something European cities.

And as far as the model will be like that, the cities will be always under the government power, so to say. But on the other hand, there is a paradox because at the same time, as we know, majority of the people are actually living in the cities. So 70% of the Europeans are living in the cities. They live in the states as well, but cities are the ones who are the most have the most biggest burden to deliver for the quality of the life. And also I would like to highlight, although it's very important to continue with the support of the cities, we can we really have to ask our question what will happen in 10 and 15 years.

Are like 80 or 90% of the Europeans will live in the cities? So we really have to find a good balance that there is a support to the cities, but also to the regions and less developed regions to not that everyone is living in the cities. But coming now for the city agenda, because of this such a huge importance of the cities, I really think that we should call and as a Parliament we did that in MFF already for increase of the money for the cities and also to find a way how to find direct access of the cities to the EU funding. This will be crucial in the next MFF to satisfy the needs of 70% of the citizens of the of the European Union. And the last I want to highlight, now we are witnessing the second heatwave which is striking mostly the cities.

It's striking also the villages, but as we are having the numbers, thousands, now we are talking about thousands of our citizens are died, has been killed by the heatwave in the cities. So focusing on really the climate adaptation of these strong big urban area should be one of the priorities and we will also table some amendments in this direction to the report. Thank you.

02:09:52 - 02:09:59

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Mr. Hugo Sobral, for three minutes.

02:09:59 - 02:14:47

Hugo Sobral

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks again to the for this committee for the continued attention to the urban dimension of cohesion policy and of EU policies more more broadly. As you know, last December, the Commission adopted the Agenda for Cities, a strategic framework for advancing sustainable and integrated urban development across European Union. The Agenda for Cities recognizes that the sustainable development of cities and urban areas is essential for the balanced development of the Union as a whole. Therefore, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for this draft report and for the strong support it expresses for the implementation of the agenda and its ambitions. The Agenda for Cities reflects a fundamental recognition that I've heard also from many of you today, the fact that cities are not simply beneficiaries of EU policies.

They are a strategic partners in designing and delivering solutions for our common challenges. They are at the forefront of many of the transformations that shape Europe's future, but at the same time they face new and growing challenges: strengthening competitiveness, decarbonizing our economy, developing skills and quality jobs, ensuring affordable housing and tackling poverty and social exclusion. These are key policy areas that are reflected in the communication and where coordinated action across all levels of governance is essential.

The communication, the Cities Agenda, pursues two main objectives that I also heard being echoed today. First, to strengthen multi-level governance, notably the role of cities and local authorities, ensuring that EU policies are more coherent, better coordinated and more effective on the ground. Second, to streamline the wide range of EU support available to cities and urban areas, making it easier for them to access the opportunities that exist. We are now fully committed to implement the agenda. We are working across services with relevant stakeholders, institutions and levels of government.

A key element of our approach will be dialogue with urban stakeholders, both through regular technical dialogues as well as through high-level political discussions where we will engage with city leaders on EU policies and legislation affecting local authorities. We have established a EU Cities Web Portal as a single entry point for information on EU initiatives, activities and funding opportunities. Looking ahead to the next programming period, we want to go further by providing a more comprehensive support. From 2028 onwards, the Commission proposes to establish an EU Cities Platform, bringing together information on funding opportunities, capacity building, technical assistance, knowledge sharing and guidance for urban planning. The report also correctly highlights the essential role of cohesion policy in supporting sustainable urban development.

Cohesion policy directly supports investments in cities and urban areas, provides knowledge, capacity building, networking opportunities. Of course, the discussion is also relevant because we are now discussing the next multiannual financial framework, as we have done in the previous item. We share the ambition to ensure that cities have the tools, resources and flexibility needed to drive sustainable transformation. Under the Commission's proposals for the next MFF, cities will benefit from national, regional and partnership plans, the EU facility and the European Competitiveness Fund. We encourage Member States, regions and cities to use the EU Agenda for Cities as a reference point in discussions on future investment priorities.

As you know, the partnership principle also remains central and it is therefore mandatory that cities and local authorities will be fully involved in the preparation of the NRPPs. To conclude, we welcome the contribution of the European Parliament to this discussion. We look forward to continuing our cooperation. We appreciate your support as also reflected in this draft report, but also in the draft report that was just discussed on the ERDF and Interreg, as well as on the draft report on the NRPPs. We appreciate your support to the key principles that underpin this agenda: strong governance, effective partnership and place-based approach.

Thank you.

02:14:47 - 02:16:44

Denis Nesci

Thank you. The final closing remarks by the rapporteur, Mr. Nesci, you have the floor.

Grazie Presidente. Ovviamente un ringraziamento sentito ai colleghi relatori ombra e a tutti i colleghi che sono intervenuti, anche al contributo dei rappresentanti della Commissione. Ho ascoltato con grande interesse e con grande attenzione tutto ciò che è stato detto e posso assicurarvi che la maggior parte delle cose che sono state dette, se non avessi avuto il limite di spazio nel testo, oggi sarebbero già state inserite. Quindi questo per dire che condivido tutto o quasi tutto quello che è stato detto e c'è tutta la volontà di poter lavorare affinché attraverso poi i contributi per il tramite degli emendamenti possano rispecchiare al meglio tutte quelle tutti quegli spunti che avete avete dato.

Alcuni sono diciamo condivisi a tal punto da essere previsti già da emendamenti che farò anche io e altri sono spunti interessanti su cui possiamo lavorare. Per me rimane importante cercare di impostare questo lavoro affinché non resti un lavoro isolato ma vorrei che questa relazione venisse adottata in un contesto in cui ancora si discute dei piani nazionali e regionali proprio perché la centralità di questa relazione possa avere un risalto maggiore. Quindi resto ovviamente in attesa dei vostri contributi e spero e mi auguro che si possa fare un lavoro largamente condiviso. Grazie.

02:16:44 - 02:17:54

Dragoş Benea

Please be informed that the deadline for tabling amendments to draft report is 23 July end of business. Now the last point it's the consideration of the draft report on the cohesion policy in the European Union eastern border regions strengthening territorial resilience and cross-border cooperation. This own-initiative report has been drafted in response to the communication of the European Commission on EU's eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The communication published on 18 February 2026 seems to provide support for border regions in nine member states: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria that are facing particularly security and socio-economic challenges due the consequences of the war in Ukraine. I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur Mr Jacek Protas from EPP.

02:17:54 - 02:25:05

Jacek Protas

Dziękuję panie przewodniczący. Z olbrzymią przyjemnością przedstawiam projekt sprawozdania dotyczącego polityki spójności we wschodnich regionach przygranicznych Unii Europejskiej. Tak, raport ten jest odpowiedzią parlamentu na komunikat Komisji Europejskiej silne regiony na rzecz bezpiecznej Europy. Ten komunikat bardzo oczekiwany przez nas, o który ja również osobiście zabiegałem przez wiele miesięcy, jest ważnym krokiem we właściwym kierunku i po raz pierwszy dostrzega szczególną sytuację wschodnich regionów przygranicznych. Tych regionów, które najwięcej straciły i nadal tracą na wojnie prowadzonej przez przez Rosję i wojnie hybrydowej, która prowadzona jest również przez Białoruś.

Ten te straty i ta trudna sytuacja wynikająca z bliskości trudnej granicy, z bliskości wojennej granicy, z wprowadzenia embarga i wielu innych ograniczeń powodują konkretne problemy, na które musi zareagować również Komisja Europejska. Ten raport to dopiero początek, bowiem teraz potrzebne są konkretne rozwiązania legislacyjne i finansowe.

I nasz raport ma służyć wskazaniu, jakie to konkretne działania powinny być podjęte. Główne przesłanie tego raportu jest proste. Wschodnie regiony przygraniczne nie są już wyłącznie beneficjentami polityki spójności, dziś są również jednym z filarów bezpieczeństwa, odporności i spójności całej Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego polityka spójności musi uwzględniać nowe realia geopolityczne i lepiej odpowiadać na wyzwania, z którymi regiony te mierzą się każdego dnia. Projekt, który dzisiaj przedstawiam, koncentruje się na kilku obszarach: dodatkowym wsparciu finansowym dla wschodnich regionów przygranicznych, wzmocnieniu programu Interreg, zwiększeniu odporności terytorialnej, inwestycjach o podwójnym zastosowaniu, prawie do pozostania mieszkańców w regionach przygranicznych oraz opracowaniu nowego wskaźnika lepiej odzwierciedlającego skutki presji gospodarczej.

Jak państwo wiedzą, projekt na tym etapie podlega ograniczeniom objętości, tak jak mówił kolega mój przed chwileczką, więc dzisiejszy tekst wyznacza główne kierunki raportu, natomiast wiele zagadnień zamierzam rozwinąć w autopoprawkach. Liczę przy tym na konstruktywną współpracę z wszystkimi grupami politycznymi, oczywiście. Ale dzisiaj chciałbym już wskazać najważniejsze obszary, które, które wymagają jeszcze rozwinięcia. Po pierwsze, chciałbym wzmocnić część dotyczącą finansowania wschodnich regionów przygranicznych. Zaproponuję rozwiązania zapewniające tym regionom rzeczywiste dodatkowe wsparcie finansowe, wyższe poziomy współfinansowania i zaliczek oraz silniejsze uwzględnienie ich szczególnych potrzeb w przyszłych instrumentach polityki spójności i planach partnerskich.

Jednocześnie zaproponuję bardziej trwały model zarządzania i monitorowania wdrażania strategii dla tych regionów. Po drugie, chciałbym znacząco rozwinąć propozycje dotyczące Interregu. Będą one obejmować pełną rekompensatę utraconych programów współpracy z Rosją i Białorusią. Region, w którym mieszkam, a którym też przez wiele lat zarządzałem, ma 200 kilometrów granicy z Rosją i od lat już nie korzysta z programu Polska-Rosja, który, który przestał funkcjonować. Stworzenie dedykowanej puli środków dla regionów najbardziej dotkniętych skutkami zawieszenia tej współpracy, większą elastyczność partnerstw z innymi regionami wschodniej flanki oraz uproszczone zasady funkcjonowania przyszłego Interregu dla tych terytoriów.

Po trzecie, zamierzam zaproponować, aby wsparcie dla wschodnich regionów przygranicznych nie ograniczało się wyłącznie do polityki spójności. Chciałbym wzmocnić ich dostęp do programów zarządzanych centralnie oraz innych instrumentów Unii, takich jak instrument Łącząc Europę, Europejski Fundusz Konkurencyjności czy wspólna polityka rolna, tak aby wsparcie miało charakter kompleksowy. Po czwarte, chciałbym rozszerzyć część dotyczącą bezpieczeństwa i inwestycji o podwójnym zastosowaniu. Zaproponuję szerszy katalog inwestycji obejmujący między innymi ochronę zdrowia, lokalną infrastrukturę transportową, infrastrukturę gotowości i odporności cywilnej oraz odpowiednie dostosowanie stosowania zasady DNSH do inwestycji wzmacniającej bezpieczeństwo. Po piąte, zamierzam znacznie szerzej rozwinąć koncepcję prawa do pozostania.

Chciałbym pokazać, że utrzymanie mieszkańców we wschodnich regionach przygranicznych jest nie tylko wyzwaniem społecznym czy demograficznym, ale również elementem bezpieczeństwa i odporności całej Unii. Dlatego zaproponuję również konkretne instrumenty wspierające mieszkańców, takie jak rozwiązania mieszkaniowe, wsparcie dla młodych rolników, pracowników ochrony zdrowia czy nauczycieli.

Po szóste, chciałbym zaproponować nowe podejście do pomocy państwa i zachęt inwestycyjnych. Będzie ono obejmować większą elastyczność zasad pomocy publicznej oraz silniejsze wykorzystanie specjalnych stref ekonomicznych jako narzędzia przyciągania inwestycji do regionów najbardziej narażonych na skutki presji geopolitycznej. I w końcu zaproponuję opracowanie nowego europejskiego wskaźnika narażenia wschodnich regionów przygranicznych, który uwzględniłby nie tylko poziom rozwoju gospodarczego, ale również czynniki związane z bezpieczeństwem, demografią, utratą powiązań transgranicznych oraz odpornością terytorialną. Uważam, że taki wskaźnik mógłby w przyszłości stać się jednym z elementów wykorzystywanych przy projektowaniu instrumentów wsparcia dla tych regionów. Jestem przekonany, że wspólnie możemy przygotować raport, który uzyska szerokie poparcie w komisji REGI i stanie się silnym głosem Parlamentu Europejskiego w dyskusji o przyszłości polityki spójności oraz przyszłości wschodnich regionów przygranicznych.

02:25:05 - 02:27:40

Dragoş Benea

Thank you, now we move to the round of shadow rapporteurs and I will start with myself and I speak in Romanian language. Aș dori să-i mulțumesc domnului Protas pentru eforturile depuse în elaborarea acestui raport din proprie inițiativă. Regiunile de la frontiera estică nu sunt doar regiuni de coeziune. Ele reprezintă prima linie a Europei, protejează frontierele externe ale Uniunii Europene, sprijină Ucraina și Republica Moldova, suportă consecințele economice ale agresiunii Rusiei și își asumă responsabilități strategice în beneficiul întregii Uniuni. Răspunsul nostru trebuie să depășească nivelul declarațiilor politice și al sprijinului moral și să se traducă în angajamente financiare concrete.

Avem datoria să oferim acestor regiuni un sprijin pe măsura provocărilor excepționale cu care se confruntă și a responsabilităților pe care le poartă în numele întregii Uniuni. În acest sens, amendamentele pe care le voi depune vor fi pe câteva elemente esențiale. În primul rând, o rată de cofinanțare din partea Uniunii Europene de 95%. O rată ridicată de cofinanțare nu reprezintă un privilegiu, ci o condiție indispensabilă pentru ca investițiile strategice în aceste regiuni să poată fi realizate. În al doilea rând, o rată de prefinanțare de 20%.

Multe autorități locale și regionale se confruntă cu probleme serioase de lichiditate, o rată de prefinanțare mai ridicată va permite demararea proiectelor la timp, fără întârzieri generate de lipsa resurselor financiare. În al treilea rând, o alocare dedicată regiunilor estice de cel puțin 10% din instrumentele financiare relevante ale Uniunii Europene. Solicităm, prin urmare, un pachet financiar distinct alocat regiunilor estice în cadrul NRPP, mecanismului pentru interconectarea Europei, fondul pentru competitivitate și programul Horizon Europa. Regiunile de la frontiera estică nu ar trebui să fie nevoite să concureze în condiții inegale pentru resurse esențiale consolidării securității și rezilienței Europei. Securitatea Europei începe la frontierele sale estice, viitorul CFM trebuie să reflecte această realitate.

Cred că trebuie să transformăm solidaritatea în investiții concrete și angajamente politice în sprijin real pentru regiunile aflate în prima linie a Europei. We continue now with Mr. Șerban-Dimitrie Sturdza from ECR.

02:27:40 - 02:29:21

Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

De ce spun asta? Pentru că vulnerabilitatea Uniunii se măsoară în funcție de vulnerabilitatea zonelor de la frontiera sa estică. De aceea doresc să subliniez că în viitorul buget european multianual, aceste regiuni trebuie să beneficieze de fonduri de coeziune suplimentare. Nu trebuie să limităm sprijinul nostru doar la zonele aflate la maximum 30 de kilometri de granița cu Rusia, Belarus, Ucraina sau Republica Moldova. Este necesar să extindem susținerea noastră pentru toate acele regiuni estice care suportă și ele efectele economice, demografice și de securitate ale războiului.

Acestea se confruntau oricum deja cu dificultăți cu mult înainte de conflictului. Vorbesc despre plecarea tinerilor, despre lipsa medicilor și a profesorilor sau despre starea drumurilor și așa mai departe. Văd asta și în țara mea, România. De aceea este nevoie de revitalizarea acestor comunități, pentru că nu le putem cere să susțină securitatea Europei lăsându-le fără oameni și fără niciun fel de perspective. Banii europeni trebuie să susțină energia, transportul, porturile, căile ferate, comunicațiile, dar și școlile, serviciile publice și economia locală.

Pentru că nu este suficient să protejăm frontiera estică a Europei, trebuie să ne asigurăm că oamenii pot rămâne, pot munci și își pot construi un viitor decent acolo unde se află, la ei în țară. Vă mulțumesc.

02:29:21 - 02:31:02

Mārtiņš Staķis

Thank you chair and thank you rapporteur for the strong draft report. I want to make three points from my side. The first on investment. After drone incidents in this spring in Latvia, foreign tourists cancelled about 60% of the bookings in these regions, 60%. Around half of our foreign investors say they are rethinking their plans.

The East-West program is good start, but it offers only loans. And every municipality I have talked to told me they simply cannot afford projects of this size. So what we need instead are grants. Second on MFF. I welcome that the negotiation box makes our border regions a priority.

But now we have to make it real. And that means ring-fenced funding in the national and regional partnership plans and dedicated calls for Eastern border regions under the European Competitiveness Fund. And third on mobility. For me, this is the real underlying problem. In border regions, everything is far away: the school, the doctor, the workplace.

And year by year, services move further from the people. People pay more in time, they pay more in money just to live a normal life. And that is why they leave. So if the right to stay is to mean something, the EU should directly support transport costs for people in these regions and better connections between them. Thank you and looking forward for fruitful cooperation.

02:31:02 - 02:31:35

Speaker 46

Yes, I will be reading on behalf of my colleague, our shadow rapporteur, who was unfortunately not able to be here. Thank you chair, dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for presenting a consistent draft report. I welcome its focus on the challenges facing the European Union's Eastern border regions and I will submit a number of amendments to further strengthen the text. The European Union's Eastern border regions are no longer simply border territories.

They have become the Union's frontline facing the direct consequences of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine as well as hybrid threats.

02:31:47 - 02:33:41

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

The European Union's eastern border regions are no longer simply border territories. They have become the Union's frontline, facing the direct consequences of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as hybrid threats and disinformation campaigns. These regions carry a disproportionate burden. They face economic disruption, weaker connectivity, higher energy costs, and growing security challenges, while at the same time protecting the Union's external borders. That is why supporting them is not only a matter of cohesion policy.

It is strategic investment in Europe's security, resilience, and competitiveness. We need a coordinated European approach that treats the eastern border regions as one interconnected strategic area. Investment should strengthen transport, digital, and energy infrastructure, increase energy autonomy, develop local value chains, and support businesses and innovation. We must also invest in young people through education, skills, and entrepreneurship, while reinforcing media literacy and democratic resilience to counter disinformation. Finally, we must ensure that local and regional authorities have the tools, expertise, and administrative support they need to make full use of Union funding and deliver projects efficiently.

A stronger eastern border means a stronger European Union. Investing in these regions means investing in our shared security, our economic resilience, and Europe's future. We must recognize this and ensure that the eastern border regions are prioritized across all Union funding instruments. I look forward to working constructively with the rapporteur and all shadow rapporteurs to deliver a strong final report. Thank you.

Sorry, I forgot to say our shadow rapporteur is Mr. Dan Barna.

02:33:41 - 02:36:47

Thank you, Renew session, and we start with Mr. Hetman, EPP.

Dziękuję bardzo, panie przewodniczący. Chciałbym w pierwszych słowach podkreślić, że podpisuję się pod wszystkim, co w swojej propozycji przedstawił pan poseł Jacek Protas, bo wykonał genialną pracę i jego propozycja jest absolutnie w stu procentach kompleksowa, jeśli chodzi o wsparcie regionów wschodnich, dziś tak dotkniętych sytuacją na granicy z Ukrainą, Białorusią oraz Rosją. Musimy podkreślić to, że te regiony borykały się już z ogromną ilością problemów jeszcze przed tym, niż wybuchła wojna w Ukrainie, ponieważ kwestia słabszej infrastruktury, słabszej gospodarki czy kwestia depopulacji była problemami, które toczyły te regiony jeszcze, tak jak powiedziałem, zanim wybuchła wojna. Te wszystkie problemy pogłębiły się po agresywnych działaniach Rosji poprzez wypowiedzenie krajom tym flanki wschodniej wojny hybrydowej oraz inwazji w Ukrainie. Szczególnie widać to na przykładzie tego, co tracą te regiony, szczególnie widać to na przykładzie chociażby programu Interreg, o którym wspominał pan poseł Protas, a o którym dzisiaj tutaj dyskutowaliśmy na początku naszej komisji.

Te regiony utraciły to źródło finansowania.

Więc widać wyraźnie, że te regiony są bardzo mocno dotknięte tą sytuacją, szczególnie od strony gospodarczej, ponieważ odpłynął stamtąd kapitał zewnętrzny. Rodzimi miejscowi przedsiębiorcy boją się inwestować w tych regionach. To ryzyko jednak jest dużo większe niż w innych regionach w Unii Europejskiej i te wszystkie problemy po prostu dzisiaj się kumulują. W związku z powyższym propozycje pana posła Protasia, aby stworzyć specjalne fundusze dla tych regionów są doskonałe. Trzeba także zadbać o to, aby były preferencyjne zasady, jeśli chodzi o dostęp do środków dla regionów wschodnich w instrumentach centralnych, takich jak Europejski Fundusz Konkurencyjności i inne.

Trzeba zmniejszyć ryzyko inwestowania przez przedsiębiorców, czy to zewnętrznych, czy rodzimych w tych regionach, chociażby poprzez zmianę mapy intensywności pomocy publicznej. Jestem absolutnie przekonany, że jesteśmy w stanie tym regionom pomóc, proponując im bardzo kompleksowe podejście i takie faktyczne wsparcie, którego oni oczekują i na które dzisiaj zasługują. Dziękuję bardzo.

02:36:47 - 02:38:23

Sabrina Repp

Thank you, Mrs. Sabrina from S&D.

Vielen Dank an meine Vorredner, ich kann mich dem, was besprochen worden ist, nur anschließen. Ich möchte aber noch mal auf einen Punkt hinweisen, den ich sehr wichtig finde. Neben der finanziellen Unterstützung und der Unterstützung gerade der Region im Osten ist es wichtig, auch den Ostseeraum in den Blick zu nehmen. Wir erleben immer wieder, dass es dort auch hybride Angriffe im Ostseeraum gibt. Der Ostseeraum, die Ostsee grenzt an Russland, an Weißrussland und wir sehen, dass es unbedingt vonnöten ist, gerade auch in den Ostseeraum zu investieren.

Das meint eben vor allem auch eine regionale Zusammenarbeit. Ich selbst komme aus Rostock, das liegt an der Ostsee und wir erleben immer wieder, wie Russland gezielt versucht, dort auch Einfluss zu nehmen. Und wenn es darum geht, gerade unsere Ostgrenze zu sichern, dann möchte ich auch noch mal in diesem Raum hier erwähnen, dass es sehr wichtig ist, auch in die gemeinsame Zusammenarbeit in den Ostseeraum zu investieren, denn es geht da um Angriffe auf Unterseekabel, es geht da um die russische Schattenflotte, es geht darum, aber auch gemeinsame Herausforderungen im Natur- und Umweltbereich, aber auch im Wirtschaftsbereich anzugehen gemeinsam. Und deswegen würde ich das gern noch mal als Impuls hier dem Berichterstattenden mitgeben, dass wir da auch gerne noch mal enger zusammenarbeiten können, weil ich sehe zum einen natürlich den Bedarf, wirklich auch in die ländlichen Räume in Polen, in Rumänien zu investieren, aber wir dürfen dabei den Ostseeraum nicht vergessen, denn da sind wir auch sehr vulnerabel. Danke.

02:38:23 - 02:41:18

Marta Wcisło

Thank you, Mrs. Wischlow from EPP.

Dziękuję bardzo, panie przewodniczący, szanowni państwo, będę mówiła... I will be speaking Polish. Bardzo się cieszę, że powstaje ten dokument. Od początku mojej pracy tu w Parlamencie Europejskim mówiłam, jak ogromną wagę odgrywają regiony przygraniczne, przyfrontowe państw, które graniczą z Polską, z Rosją, Białorusią i Ukrainą. Od początku mówiłam, że to nie są regiony, regiony, które są regionami tylko daleko oddalonymi od centrum Europy, od Brukseli, ale są to regiony, na których spoczywa odporność i bezpieczeństwo. Jednocześnie te regiony są najbiedniejsze w całej Unii Europejskiej.

Region, z którego pochodzę, Lubelszczyzna, niestety, ale ma jedno z największych bezrobocia, stopy bezrobocia w Polsce i w Unii Europejskiej.

I jest to związane bezpośrednio z tym, co się dzieje za naszą wschodnią granicą. Odpływ inwestorów, wstrzymanie inwestycji, zanik ruchu granicznego, handlu i wiele, wiele innych czynników. Dlatego wsparcie tych regionów jest dzisiaj absolutnie konieczne, niezbędne. Tak jak powiedziałam, nie są to peryferia, jest to kluczowa linia odporności i bezpieczeństwa, o czym mówi sama Komisja Europejska. Dlatego będę składała szereg poprawek do tego dokumentu, o niektórych powiem w tej chwili.

Po pierwsze, konieczne jest dodatkowe finansowanie w kolejnych wieloletnich ramach finansowych poza krajowymi kopertami, czyli dodatkowy instrument finansowy. Po drugie, wyższe współfinansowanie, większe zaliczki, prostsze procedury i realny dostęp do środków dla samorządów i MŚP. Po trzecie, inwestycje w odporność, infrastrukturę krytyczną, przygraniczną, terminale logistyczne, mobilność wojskową, ochronę ludności i bezpieczeństwo cywilne, ale także inwestycje w dual use, tak jak tu wcześniej mówiliśmy, inwestycje, które w czasie pokoju będą służyły ludności, będą sprzyjały rozwojowi tych regionów, a w czasie zagrożenia będą chroniły obywateli. Regiony wschodnie, przygraniczne, przyfrontowe, oprócz tego, że mają chronić i bronić silnej Europy, muszą funkcjonować, muszą się rozwijać. I bardziej niż kiedykolwiek potrzebna nam jest solidarność europejska.

Dziękuję bardzo.

02:41:18 - 02:43:26

Daniel Buda

Thank you, Mr. Daniel Buda from EPP.

Un colega din Irlanda spunea mai devreme că nu va accepta niciodată ca banii din politica de coeziune să meargă către capacități de apărare. Aș vrea să fac o precizare foarte importantă, stimați colegi. Noi, cei care stăm și trăim în această zonă a Europei, Dumnezeu ne-a lăsat acolo. Nu ne-am ales noi acest lucru și ne bucurăm și îi mulțumim pentru că stăm în aceste zone minunate. Dar trebuie să înțelegeți că până la urmă noi suntem cei care păzim Uniunea Europeană cu prețul vieții noastre, cu prețul a ceea ce înseamnă afectarea afacerilor și a economiei și așa mai departe.

De aceea cred că este foarte important să înțelegem că da, avem nevoie de resurse financiare adecvate pentru a putea consolida aceste regiuni. M-am deplasat pe granița cu Ucraina în România, în țara mea, fiind din altă regiune, imediat după război, la două luni de zile. E complicat să vă explic ce înseamnă o infrastructură care să fie grevată de cei care plecau din calea războiului. Am fost pe urmă cu colegul Protas în Polonia, pe granița cu Belarus. Este complicat să înțelegi ce înseamnă să plece cel cu care vorbeai pentru că urma să cadă o dronă undeva în proximitatea locului în care te aflai.

Este complicat să înțelegi că la Galați sau la Tulcea, în România, tot la trei-patru zile cad bucăți de dronă în acele zone. Iată deci de ce este important să înțelegem că aceste regiuni, și salut propunerea Comisiei, au nevoie de investiții pentru a putea preveni, pe de o parte, depopularea acelor regiuni. Este foarte complicat să ții oamenii în acele regiuni și în același timp să facem investiții adecvate care să permită dezvoltarea economică a acestor zone. Pentru că este important să înțelegem că da, aceste zone practic se constituie în ceea ce înseamnă grănicerii Uniunii Europene și evident că vom depune amendamente în acest sens pentru a putea finanța în mod adecvat aceste regiuni, atât din punct de vedere al infrastructurii, cât și din punct de vedere al capacităților de apărare și în același timp, sigur, inclusiv în ceea ce înseamnă capacități de depozitare mai mari în aceste regiuni pentru că avem nevoie de astfel de capacități.

02:43:26 - 02:43:32

Dragoş Benea

Thank you, Mr. Hugo Sobral, please, for maximum two minutes and a half.

02:43:32 - 02:48:01

Hugo Sobral

Thank you very much, Chair. We very much welcome the attention you've been devoting to this topic and to the situation in the Eastern border regions. These regions have borne the brunt of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Trade has collapsed, energy costs have increased sharply, and local economies that were once closely integrated with neighboring markets have had to adapt almost overnight. At the same time, hybrid threats, including sabotage, instrumentalization of migration, and a growing number of drone incursions have further heightened insecurity.

These challenges reinforce one another. Security concerns discourages private investment. Demographic decline accelerates as people, especially younger generations, leave border areas. This is why action is important. During the current programming period, the Commission has made full use of the available flexibility to support these regions.

Through technical assistance, the mid-term review of cohesion policy, we enabled substantial investments in competitiveness, security, and resilience, while easing financial pressure on Member States through higher co-financing and pre-financing rates. As a result, Eastern border regions have redirected more than 5.6 billion euros of EU funding, cohesion funding, towards military mobility, critical technologies, and dual-use projects. At the same time, it is clear that these challenges are structural, that's why they require a strategic response. This is precisely why the Commission has adopted a communication on Eastern border regions. It covers regions in nine Member States: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.

The communication is firmly rooted in extensive consultation. It builds on the call for evidence, cooperation with national, regional, and local authorities, engagement with public and private stakeholders. It sets out an integrated approach structured around five reinforcing pillars: security and defense, investment, competitiveness, connectivity, and people. At its core lies a simple principle: resilient regions depend on resilient communities. Development and security are not competing objectives, they reinforce one another.

Our approach is not solely based on mitigating risks. It is equally about unlocking opportunities. Eastern border regions possess considerable assets, from skilled people and natural resources to innovative businesses. They can become engines of resilience, competitiveness, and growth. We propose therefore to strengthen the investment ecosystem through initiatives such as the East Invest Facility, which brings together several international financial institutions and national and regional promotional banks to improve access to finance and advisory services.

We are also working with the World Bank. Since 2025, our partnership has supported regions in Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland in identifying investment opportunities, preparing projects, and strengthening long-term resilience. On 18 of June, the Commission launched the Eastern Border Regions Peer-to-Peer Community, bringing together practitioners from local and regional authorities to exchange experience, strengthen resilience, and improve crisis preparedness. Looking ahead, the next MFF provides an opportunity to reinforce support to Eastern border regions.

...also explicitly recognizes their unique circumstances and the need to address their specific challenges through the NRPPs, enabling investments that respond to security, economic, and development needs. I fully recognize that the scale of challenges and investments outpaces or goes beyond the resources currently available. However, the communication provides an opportunity, an important strategic framework, and a solid basis on which to build. To conclude, the Commission remains fully committed to working with the European Parliament, Member States, and regional authorities to ensure that our eastern border regions can become pillars of Europe's prosperity, security, and resilience. Thank you.

02:48:01 - 02:48:06

Dragoş Benea

Final remarks by Mr. Protas, the rapporteur.

02:48:06 - 02:50:33

Jacek Protas

Panie przewodniczący, szanowni państwo, bardzo dziękuję za te wszystkie konstruktywne głosy. Z państwa wypowiedzi wynika, że mamy wspólny pogląd na temat potrzeb wschodnich regionów granicznych. Większość sprawozdawców cieni pochodzi z tych krajów, które będą objęte programem. Szczególnie tutaj zwracam uwagę na Rumunię i kolegów trzech raportów cieni pochodzi z Rumunii. Mówiąc żartobliwie, chyba na urlop się tam wybiorę, żeby więc bardziej poznać wasze potrzeby.

Szanowni państwo, pozwólcie, że ja jestem przekonany, że w trakcie prac, kiedy zgłosicie poprawki, dojdziemy szybko do porozumienia, bo wynika to z państwa wypowiedzi. Natomiast dwa zdania skieruję do przedstawiciela Komisji Europejskiej. Rzeczywiście przegląd śródokresowy pokazał dobry kierunek działań Komisji Europejskiej, jeśli chodzi o regiony wschodnie. Natomiast chcę zwrócić uwagę, że przegląd śródokresowy przesuwał już przyznane środki w kopertach, które miały te regiony zagwarantowane. Wyodrębniono oddzielne priorytety, dodatkowe, pozwolono na pewne udogodnienia.

Natomiast regiony wschodnie potrzebują dodatkowego wsparcia, nie tylko w ramach kopert, które dostaną poszczególne kraje i wszystkie regiony w tych krajach. I na to zwracam uwagę. Pomoc ekstra, a nie w ramach, tak? Więc zwrócę też uwagę na program East Invest. Oczywiście nie chcę krytykować tego instrumentu, ale te regiony i przedsiębiorcy w tych regionach potrzebują grantów, wsparcia bezpośredniego, a nie kolejnych pożyczek.

Te pożyczki czy kredyty będą do wzięcia dla silnych graczy, a nie dla tych najsłabszych, którzy borykają się w tej chwili z konkretnymi problemami. To uwagi do Komisji. Mam nadzieję również, że tutaj z przedstawicielami Komisji dojdziemy do porozumienia, bowiem my oczekujemy konkretnych zapisów w aktach prawnych, które przełożą ten komunikat, strategię na konkretne działania.

02:50:33 - 02:50:57

Dragoş Benea

Thank you. Please be informed that the deadline for tabling amendments to the draft report was set for 23 July 2026 at noon. Thank you so much. We will now continue with the coordinators' meeting. The coordinators' meeting will be chaired by Mrs. Lubica Karvasova, and I would like to thank her for her willingness to take on this role.

Thank you so much.