Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting
Legenda
Marcadores da transcrição
- texto Frase em reprodução
- texto Resultado da pesquisa
- texto Intervenção citada pela ligação que abriu
Clique numa frase para reproduzir o vídeo a partir desse momento. Selecione texto para o citar com o orador, a marca temporal e a ligação.
Mais opções
REGI European Parliament
Seguir as suas sessõesMarcos Ros Sempere
Tenemos que aplicar el principio del building back better, construir mejor, reconstruir mejor, gestionar nuestros montes en este caso de forma preventiva, adaptar nuestras infraestructuras a una realidad climática que es diferente y que es adversa y que ya está aquí. Y la respuesta europea no solo consiste en pagar la factura de las catástrofes de hoy, sino en garantizar que nuestro medio rural esté preparado para resistir a las posibles catástrofes del futuro.
Muchas gracias.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. From the Patriots somebody? No. From ECR? Renew?
Mrs. Lubica Karvasova.
Lubica Karvasova
Welcome back to school. I think that's what happening maybe some classmates are still on the way or are skipping the first day of the school but I also wanted to to welcome you all that have made it to Brussels this morning including the chair of the committee and I wish us all a lot of effort and strength for the for the fruitful cooperation for the next half year and the next term of the European Parliament. On the very specific issue of heatwaves and wildfires we keep on coming back to those obviously for obvious reasons but what I wanted to stress is that we have witnessed again this summer yet another situation where a heatwave itself is enough to kill people. In France and in number of other countries in Europe a simple heatwave is enough. We don't even need wildfires and floods.
So the situation whoever believes that there is no climate change and the impact is non-existent and it doesn't impact lives of our people is wrong. And we see this every single summer in Europe. I think and I want to appreciate efforts of all cities or villages where leadership was able to react quickly to these urgencies and I think it's good that the EU also has instruments to react quickly be it Restore that we adopted some time ago or any other instruments that would help those leadership to act quickly. But I also want to stress that preparedness is something that we really need to be very attentive to and since we're discussing the future MFF and the future European funds this is really the time to remind ourselves how much of those will be devoted to preparedness and to be able to save lives of people not when it's already necessary or urgent or we won't save all of them but to really be ready with infrastructure and the means to prevent the bad impact of climate change we are witnessing in cities and also in villages because the solutions are there and Europe is here to to make use of it. Thank you.
Vladimir Prebilič
Well thank you very much for the floor. It was a hot summer I would say to a certain extent and of course I would like to underline to all those who don't still don't believe there is a climate change happening in Europe just you know look over the window you will see what's happening around us. Number one. The number two we are today at war definitely but this is no war between us and somebody else. It's between us and nature unfortunately and it's the time to do more on prevention.
And when I talk prevention this doesn't mean that we will invest hundreds of billions of euros into let's say water supply system and so on of course this is also important but let's stop burdening the environment because environment is reacting on us. So the best prevention today would be not to disband Green Deal and stop talking about climate change but you know handling the reasons for what is happening here.
Adaptation is another word I always hear. How can we adapt on degrees like 40, 45 and so on? It's impossible. We are killing our planet and I think this killing should stop right now. However, I would like to end on a positive note.
First, thank you to all the firefighters, all rescue services around Europe who does their perfect job to protect us, to help us when this is important. And when we talk about this support, now it's the time more than ever not to invest into tanks, bombs, rifles and so on, but to invest in so-called Rescue 2.0. We need more coordinated approach, we need more cooperativeness between the member countries. We have to invest into civil protection, we have to invest into firefighters, to those who are protecting us day after the day. So please, ladies and gentlemen, it's high time to recognize we are doing something wrong and try to change our behavior.
When or if we are not changing that, nothing will help us. Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Je ne répéterai pas ce qui a déjà été dit par les orateurs précédents. Je voudrais souligner tout de même que depuis 2019, à chaque rentrée, nous avons ce débat sur les catastrophes naturelles puisque chaque été les catastrophes se multiplient en Europe. Et lors de la dernière législature, souvenez-vous, notre commission REGI s'était rendue en Allemagne. Nous avons été particulièrement choqués par les impacts des inondations qui avaient fait des centaines de morts et près de 4 milliards de dégâts.
Il en était de même en Belgique et dans beaucoup d'autres régions européennes. Et ce que je constate, c'est que ce débat met en exergue une forme d'inertie politique puisque nous ne pouvons pas dire que nous n'avons pas été alertés, d'abord par les scientifiques, ensuite par les constats que nous avons pu faire nous-mêmes, et pour autant nous continuons comme si de rien comme avant. Donc la question qui se pose à nous, c'est comment nous pouvons intégrer à présent dans nos politiques ce pilier essentiel de l'adaptation au réchauffement climatique. Et si nous nous référons là encore aux propositions de notre commission REGI, nous avons maintes fois demandé à ce qu'il soit établi une cartographie européenne des impacts des catastrophes naturelles d'une part, et d'autre part des stratégies régionales d'adaptation au réchauffement climatique. Notre commission doit le proposer et être à l'initiative car ce que nous voyons, c'est que le réchauffement planétaire va emporter des conséquences dans tous les domaines.
Et ce sont toutes les stratégies de développement régional mises en œuvre dans les régions qui sont bousculées. Prenez l'exemple de l'agriculture, nous voyons très clairement aujourd'hui que dans ce secteur, il va falloir prendre des mesures par rapport à un certain nombre de cultures qui dans certaines régions ne seront plus adaptées et qui le seront peut-être dans d'autres. Nous le voyons également pour les infrastructures, il y a la question aussi de toute la de toutes les industries qui sont localisées sur les côtes maritimes.
Bref, il y a des impacts sur la santé. Bref, c'est tout tout toutes les stratégies des régions qui sont aujourd'hui appelées à être repensées. C'est la raison pour laquelle je vous propose, Monsieur le Président, que notre commission reprenne l'initiative et demande à la Commission européenne de s'engager dans des stratégies régionales d'adaptation au réchauffement climatique, stratégie européenne pour mettre tout cela en cohérence. Je n'insisterai pas sur les aspects en matière de sécurité, de sécurité civile, mais là encore nous avons vu pendant cet été avec les incendies, notamment en France et et dans d'autres de d'autres pays, tous les moyens nouveaux qui doivent être aujourd'hui mobilisés. En tout cas, notre commission doit continuer à être à la pointe sur cette question car autrement toute la stratégie régionale du de la prochaine programmation risque d'être enrayée dans leurs objectifs.
Merci.
Irmhild Boßdorf
Ja, vielen Dank für das Wort. Auch ich würde mich gerne noch kurz zu dem Thema äußern, denn auch Deutschland ist in diesem Jahr von Waldbränden schwer getroffen worden. Wir hatten ja den großen Brand im Hürtgenwald, wo die Löscharbeiten drastisch erschwert wurden, weil dort noch sehr viel Weltkriegsmunition, vor allem Phosphorgranaten, im Boden vorhanden sind und deswegen Löscharbeiten an vielen Stellen gar nicht durchgeführt werden konnten. Ein Thema, auf das ich gerne noch mal rekurrieren möchte, ist, das haben wir in der Vergangenheit in Deutschland gesehen, auch bei verheerenden Hochwasserkatastrophen, dass wir ein Riesenproblem haben mit unserer Bürokratisierung. Das Technische Hilfswerk hat beispielsweise bei dem schrecklichen Hochwasser im Ahrtal nicht helfen können.
Die sind unverrichteter Dinge wieder abgezogen, weil sie keine Zusicherung bekommen haben, dass möglicherweise durch Einsatz beschädigtes Material ersetzt werden könnte. Das muss einfach aufhören. Da muss es unbürokratische Hilfe geben und da müssen sich die Deutschen und auch die EU vielleicht mal über bürokratische Regeln, die sie sich selber auferlegt haben, hinwegsetzen. Das zweite ist die Katastrophenvorsorge. Auch das klappt nicht nur in Deutschland nicht gut.
Wir haben das gesehen, in Deutschland ist ja auch tatsächlich der damalige Leiter unseres Katastrophenschutzes entlassen worden, weil beim Probealarm tatsächlich alles schiefgegangen ist, was nur schiefgehen kann. Und wenn wir resilient werden wollen in Europa, dann sollten wir uns auch diesen beiden Themen widmen. Vielen Dank.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We continue with normal members, please one minute maximum each. And we start with Mr. Pascal Arimont from EPP.
Pascal Arimont
Vielen Dank. Ja, ich wohne in einem kleinen Dorf im mitten Herzen Europas, das immer sehr grün ist, das auf 500 Metern liegt. 10 Kilometer von meinem Dorf hat das größte Hochmoor Europas fast vollständig gebrannt. Durch mein Dorf ging ein Tornado, der ein Haus zerstört hat und um mich herum waren die Felder braun. Und ob es Klimaschutz Klimaveränderung gibt oder nicht, müssen wir nicht diskutieren.
Wir sehen das jeden Tag. Und Frau Bostdorf, wenn Sie über Resilienz sprechen, dann müssen Sie sich vielleicht die Frage mal stellen, wogegen wir denn resilient sein müssen. Sie verneinen Klimaveränderungen nach wie vor und erzählen hier was von Bürokratie. Ich war froh, als es im Venn brannte, als europäische Hilfe dort ankam in Form von Flugzeugen, in Form von Helikopter. Und da hat Europa hervorragend funktioniert.
Das ist aber das, was passiert, wenn eine Naturkatastrophe geschieht. Wir müssen natürlich uns besser darauf vorbereiten. Mein Kollege Ros Sempere und ich versuchen das über Abänderungen der Kriterien in dem Text, den wir gerade bearbeiten, indem wir die Resilienz dort als Policy Objective, als Kriterium aufnehmen, damit Länder verstärkt in Vorbereitung investieren können. Ich möchte aber noch etwas sagen, und das ist eben schon angeklungen. Wir hatten dieses RESTORE-Programm für das Jahr 25 auferlegt von der Kommission.
Im Jahre 2026 waren die Katastrophen nicht minder, sogar größer. Und ich würde gerne die Kommission auffordern, dass wir dieses RESTORE-Programm verlängern, damit all diese Länder, die dieses Jahr auch unter Katastrophen gelitten haben, ihre Gelder umwidmen können dort, wo Katastrophen waren, damit schnell Hilfe vor Ort ankommt. Ich glaube, das wäre eine Forderung, die wir als Ausschuss machen könnten, dass dieses RESTORE-Programm verlängert wird bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo die neuen Texte gelten. Auch da, mein Kollege und ich haben dort auch eine Idee eingebracht, dass man diese RESTORE-Idee von den 10 % Umwidmung, dass man das als Grundidee in die Texte reinschreibt, damit bei Katastrophen schnell Hilfe dort ankommt, wo sie nötig ist, und dass diese Hilfe dann auch so definiert ist, dass man so wieder aufbaut, dass man besser gewappnet ist vor der nächsten Katastrophe, die garantiert kommt, weil alle Experten sind sich einig, dass diese Feuer, diese Überflutungen, diese Trockenheit, dass das keine einmaligen Dinge sind, sondern dass das exponentiell wächst und dass Europa darauf vorbereitet sein muss. Also wir brauchen nicht nur zwölf neue Löschflugzeuge, die wir jetzt gekauft haben, wir brauchen tatsächlich ein Konzept, wie wir uns besser auf die Folgen der Klimaveränderung vorbereiten.
Und da kann der REGI-Ausschuss sehr konkret helfen, indem wir zum Beispiel dieses RESTORE-Programm verlängern. Vielen Dank.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Gracias, presidente. Como ya se ha dicho, este verano ha vuelto a ser devastador para Europa. Olas de calor e incendios forestales han dejado tras de sí cientos de familias evacuadas de sus poblaciones, personas fallecidas y territorios arrasados con consecuencias económicas enormes. Y no nos engañemos, cuando termine el verano no terminarán las emergencias. En otoño llegarán las DANAs, las inundaciones y otros fenómenos extremos.
Ante esto no podemos quedarnos de brazos cruzados. Estas catástrofes golpean especialmente a nuestras regiones, a nuestras zonas rurales y a quienes tienen menos recursos para afrontarlas. Y frente a quienes niegan o banalizan el cambio climático, Europa y su presupuesto debe de estar a la altura y garantizar los recursos necesarios para proteger a nuestros ciudadanos y sobre todo también a nuestros territorios. Debemos escuchar a la gente que vive en nuestros territorios, a los que están en primera línea, a nuestros bomberos forestales que nos están pidiendo más medios, más personal y mayor capacidad de prevención y respuesta. Actuemos ya y el próximo presupuesto europeo tiene que contemplar cuestiones para solucionar estos problemas.
Gracias.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Oui, merci président. Merci d'avoir organisé ce débat parce que l'ampleur des phénomènes en Europe, singulièrement bien sûr en France également de cet été, a été telle que l'Europe doit absolument se doter d'une stratégie et de moyens financiers à la hauteur. C'est bien le moins que l'on puisse faire pour nos pompiers qui ont lutté avec courage tout l'été, parfois au péril de leur vie, et bien évidemment aux élus locaux et régionaux qui eux aussi étaient aux premières loges pour accompagner les nombreuses victimes. En complément de mes collègues, j'insisterai sur quatre axes. Je pense qu'on a besoin d'une gestion active de nos forêts, préventive, avec un volet dédié dans la PAC pour accompagner les agriculteurs et les gestionnaires forestiers.
Je pense qu'on a aussi besoin d'une industrie européenne souveraine de protection civile avec des bombardiers d'eau, c'est ce que disait à l'instant Pascal Arimont, fabriqués en Europe. La protection du statut de nos sapeurs-pompiers volontaires, nous sommes plusieurs États membres concernés, qui sont fragilisés par la jurisprudence européenne. Et une meilleure préparation de nos populations et de nos collectivités locales à la gestion de la crise. Nous sommes en pleine discussion du budget de l'Union 2028-2034. Je pense que le Conseil et la Commission doivent se souvenir de ce qui s'est passé cet été pour que nous n'ayons pas effectivement l'année prochaine, après l'été, de nouveau à déplorer ces phénomènes et ces catastrophes.
Je vous remercie.
Ana Miranda Paz
Muchas gracias, presidente. Hace escasamente dos meses organicé aquí en el Parlamento Europeo una exposición sobre el impacto de los incendios que habían tenido en mi nación, en Galiza, el año pasado. Desgraciadamente, todo lo que decíamos se ha cumplido. Este verano, desde Bélgica al sur de Europa, desde el norte de Europa hasta las zonas del este, Europa ha ardido y no se está aprendiendo la lección. La primera cuestión es la prevención.
Estamos en la Comisión de Desarrollo Regional y tenemos la oportunidad de votar políticas en favor de la prevención. Por eso, también en el documento que hoy vamos a votar, del performance, hemos incluido muchas enmiendas relativas a la prevención y a la resiliencia. La segunda cuestión son los datos. Datos ciertos, datos de Copernicus, y no como lo que pasó con la Xunta de Galicia el año pasado, que daba datos falsos. Esto es una realidad que está pasando en muchos territorios.
Datos ciertos, científicos, exactos y no mentiras. Por otra parte, todo el tema de la solidaridad, una solidaridad que tiene que estar basada también en la prevención y en el apoyo y la protección civil, porque saben, desgraciadamente, ha tenido que ser el pueblo el que ha salido en lugares de muchos territorios. Lo hemos visto recientemente, fuimos a un lugar de la provincia de Ourense llamado A Rúa, y allí, en algunos lugares como un entorno que se llama Vilamartín, tuvieron que salir los propios vecinos a apagar el fuego porque no había medios de prevención. O el alcalde de A Mezquita, también en Ourense, que no tenía ni una bomba para apagar el fuego. Estas cosas también las tiene que saber cuando se dan fondos europeos y luego no se fiscalizan.
Por otra parte, apoyo totalmente esa cartografía europea de desastres y también un tema fundamental que es la resiliencia y la restauración. Tenemos ahora una Europa quemada, tenemos nuestras naciones quemadas, nuestros bosques quemados, casas, acabo presidente porque esto es importante, y resulta que no hemos restaurado suficientemente. Los fondos europeos también tienen que ser para la restauración. Gracias.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Ευχαριστώ κύριε πρόεδρε. Λοιπόν εγώ ασχολιόμουνα μέχρι και πριν από το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο με την πρόγνωση του καιρού στη δημόσια τηλεόραση της Ελλάδας και πάνω από 30 χρόνια. Και έχω μάθει να ξεχωρίζω την πρόγνωση από την πρόληψη. Βλέπουμε τώρα μαζί με τα άλλα και ένα ισχυρό Ελ Νίνιο το οποίο προειδοποιούν όλοι ότι θα είναι από τα πιο ισχυρά των τελευταίων ετών. Δεν γνωρίζουμε ακριβώς επιπτώσεις του Ελ Νίνιο στην περιοχή.
Λένε ότι θα είναι υγρός ο καιρός στην Ευρώπη σε κάποιες άλλες περιοχές πιο ζεστός αλλά αυτό που γνωρίζουμε είναι ότι το σύστημα γενικότερα το παγκόσμιο έχει γίνει πολύ πιο ασταθές από ότι τα προηγούμενα χρόνια. Δύσκολα οι Βορειοευρωπαίοι και Κεντροευρωπαίοι πίστευαν ότι θα έρθει μια τέτοια κατάσταση μια επίμονη κατάσταση όπου οι καύσωνες θα έφταναν τόσο βόρεια. Στον Καναδά είχαμε και 50 βαθμούς Κελσίου πριν από κάποια χρόνια και βλέπουμε ότι δεν υπάρχουν πλέον δικαιολογίες από καμία πλευρά ως το ότι δεν υπάρχει κλιματική αλλαγή και αν είναι ανθρωπογενής η κλιματική αλλαγή για να μην τα μπερδεύουμε γιατί κλιματική αλλαγή είχαμε πάντα στον πλανήτη μας. Στην Ελλάδα έχουν διατεθεί και είδαμε τι συνέβη και φέτος. Καλά η χώρα η Ελλάδα έχει χτυπηθεί πάμπολλες φορές με την κλιματική αλλαγή και έχουν διατεθεί εκατοντάδες εκατομμύρια ευρώ και ευρωπαϊκοί πόροι για την πρόληψη των δασικών πυρκαγιών και συγκεκριμένα μέσω του προγράμματος Anti-Nero.
Αλλά λέμε κάθε χρόνο το καλοκαίρι πού πήγαν τα χρήματα ποιο ήταν το πραγματικό αποτέλεσμα. Αυτό για μένα είναι το πιο βασικό και θα πρέπει να τονιστεί το εξής ότι ανθεκτικότητα δεν είναι τα χρήματα που ξοδεύουμε μετά την καταστροφή είναι η καταστροφή που προλαβαίνουμε πριν αυτή συμβεί. Σας ευχαριστώ.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you chair. It's not easy for me to talk about this subject because this summer in Croatia two people lost life in wildfires one firefighter and one young lady who came from Bosnia and Herzegovina to work in Croatian tourism and to help my country. So two lives has been lost. But many more lives has been lost across Europe and now we are counting in numbers of thousands because of the incredible heat wave which was hitting mostly our senior citizens. And you know we can talk about the prevention and we can talk about more investment in prevention but also please do talk with the firefighters and listen what they are saying.
Of course they will say we need more power but they will also say the fires we are facing are beyond our control. So now we are facing the fires which even the firefighters haven't been seen before in the history. And this is all the consequences of the climate change. And this is why I'm additionally annoyed because knowing that I'm coming from the Green group which my colleagues for decade has been talking in this parliament what will happen very soon in Europe is happening now. And I'm calling one more time for all of my colleagues take now the responsibility.
You will have chance now in a few minutes to vote for example on performance regulation about do not significant harm which you want to erase from the next MFF. We don't want significant harm to be done to the nature to the people of Europe and this is why it's important to vote about that. So don't forget about this debate only few minutes later. And to my respectful colleagues for ECR and Patriots. You can be silent today about this topic but you will not hide from this topic by being silent.
Thank you very much.
Esther Herranz García
Sí gracias presidente. La verdad es que este no ha sido el peor año de los incendios en Europa porque se han quemado más de 600.000 hectáreas el 2025 fue peor y es difícilmente superable y ojalá no lleguemos a ello.
Pero de esas 600.000 hectáreas quemadas, 300.000 han sido en mi país, en España. Y creo que ha llegado el momento que desde un punto de vista regional nos planteemos qué tenemos que modificar, cómo podemos contribuir desde este Parlamento a que esta situación se corrija en la medida de todo lo posible. Por una parte la legislación. Nuestra legislación europea, con algunas normas como la Red Natura o la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza, hacen muy restrictiva y coercitiva el uso y el tratamiento de los bosques de lo que se ha hecho siglo tras siglo. Prácticas como los cortafuegos, como las limpiezas de los bosques, las veredas, incluso el tipo de vegetación ornamental en las zonas mixtas entre urbanismo y medio natural, hay que corregirlo.
Y por otra parte, también hay que buscar en los recursos de la lucha contra incendios, tanto en la prevención como en la extinción. No puede ser que estados de la Unión Europea tengan menos medios que hace 10 años, cuando estamos en unas condiciones que hasta los propios gobiernos reconocen que son peores. Y es el caso de España, donde estamos peor que hace 10 años. Y por último los medios materiales y personales. Ha llegado el momento desde un punto de vista regional de plantearnos si los medios humanos que tenemos para el control de los bosques no tendrían que ser extendidos a lo largo de todo el año, incluso que la Unión Europea colaborara financieramente para ello.
Gracias.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
No, Chair, thank you. I think that a lot has been said already. We need to go to vote, I think.
Marko Vešligaj
Mr. Veselica from S&D.
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Croatian. Ljeto 2026. još jednom je pokazalo da je klimatska kriza činjenica. Odnosi živote, domove, uništava prirodu i poljoprivredne nasade. U maloj Hrvatskoj vatrogasci su samo do 10. kolovoza imali više od 29.000 intervencija, protupožarni zrakoplovi intervenirali su na 104 požarišta, a broj požara bio je veći od 8.800.
Izgorjelo je 75% zemlje više nego prošle godine. Onda je uslijedio najgori dio požarne sezone, požar u dalmatinskom gradu Omišu koji je ugrozio desetke tisuća ljudskih života, nažalost odnio dva, uništio kuće, turističke objekte, automobile, plovila, ali Hrvatska naravno nije bila jedina koja se borila sa požarima u Europskoj uniji. Ovo nam je sad stvarno jasan signal. Krajnje vrijeme da moramo više ulagati u vatrogasce, u protupožarne zrakoplove, u prevenciju, u navodnjavanje šume i pomoć poljoprivrednicima. Klimatska otpornost mora nam biti politički prioritet.
I moramo se pitati zašto nam sustavi ne funkcioniraju. Kako je moguće da je Hrvatska platila više od 8 milijuna eura za sustav ranog upozoravanja, a on se tijekom požara u Omišu nije aktivirao. Tko je odgovoran? To pitanje postavljam i ovdje sa europske razine. Hvala.
Daniel Buda
Foarte pe scurt, domnule președinte, deoarece s-au spus foarte multe lucruri astăzi aici, dar este comisia unde această discuție trebuie să fie purtată, deoarece avem responsabilitatea de a gestiona ceea ce înseamnă autoritățile publice locale și regionale și naționale. Sigur, avem acest mecanism de protecție civilă și le mulțumesc pompierilor din România care au fost și în Franța și în Grecia și în alte state. El trebuie să fie consolidat fără discuție. Însă, în opinia mea, principalul pas pe care trebuie să-l facem, stimați colegi, este acela de a crea acea rețea de bazine hidrografice la nivelul Uniunii Europene. Așa cum astăzi avem o rețea de autostrăzi, la fel va trebui să avem o rețea de bazine care să capteze apa pentru a putea fi folosită la intervențiile necesare pompierilor, pentru că în unele regiuni, cum este și regiunea mea, pur și simplu se pune în discuție accesibilitatea la apă.
Ai un incendiu, cu ce stingi aceste incendii? De aceea cred că este foarte important, domnule președinte, stimați colegi, să punem la îndemâna primarilor aceste mecanisme financiare pe care ei să le folosească în vederea regularizării cursului de râuri, să-și facă aceste bazine de captare în așa fel încât să poată să intervină. Pentru că altfel, degeaba povestim noi aici dacă ei nu au aceste resurse la îndemână. Mulțumesc.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for organizing this debate on this distressing issue. I think it's fair to say it is the region of Central Europe that has suffered most over the course of the summer, and I have watched with distress the scenes as people have lost their lives and great damage has been caused. I extend my sympathy to fellow MEPs from these regions, and indeed I compliment the work carried out by the fire services. Notwithstanding that, nowadays wildfires affect us all, even on the periphery of Europe, on the western furthest western point, we have had the same issue over the course of the last 18 months. 4,000 hectares have been destroyed in headland, in forestry, and on peatland.
I watched this summer while fire services coped as best they could over days and days and days of days trying to deal with forest fires. And indeed, I admired the work of local farmers in County Tipperary in my constituency and nearby, who came to the aid of their neighbors and to others to assist them throughout the night in their efforts to deal with the situation. Chair, we must plan for to deal with this going forward. These are becoming regular events on peatland in particular in parts of County Roscommon, County Longford, and County Mayo. I have seen it myself.
I welcome the fact that the the Atlantic Technological University is taking measures to prepare a plan for Glenveagh National Park in Donegal. But we need a plan for right across the region. And we need Bord na Móna to clean up its act in many areas where harvested peat is still remaining on the bogs, still lying there despite the cessation of harvesting, half a million tons just lying there and going on fire every summer, causing difficulty for neighbors and indeed for our fire services. They must get their act together. Thank you.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you. We continue with Ms. Nevado del Campo from EPP.
Thank you so much, President. I will speak in Spanish. Yo creo que los incendios no entienden ni de fronteras ni de ideologías y por eso nuestra responsabilidad tiene que ser seguir reforzando las estructuras que permitan a los Estados dotarles de medios cuando y donde lo necesiten. Y yo lo que veo es que a algunos les interesa más ese debate ideológico y no hacer absolutamente nada más que hablar continuamente de si existe o no el cambio climático o si somos o no negacionistas del cambio climático. Pero yo quiero empezar mi exposición expresando mi absoluta solidaridad con todos los afectados por los incendios en Europa, especialmente en España por haber sido el país que más ha sufrido este verano, mi propia provincia, Cáceres, en Las Hurdes, y por lo tanto yo quiero expresar esa solidaridad y sobre todo nuestro pésame a los fallecidos en el trágico incendio de Almería donde trece europeos, algunos belgas, franceses y británicos perdieron su vida.
Por lo tanto estamos hablando de algo muy, muy, muy serio. Y deberíamos hacer muchas reflexiones y qué ha hecho Europa para que ahora estemos hablando de esto y hayamos llegado hasta aquí.
Porque es fácil entender que lo que hay que hacer es reforzar la protección civil europea, la reserva específica del RescEU y sobre todo que hemos abandonado el mundo rural y la agricultura. Si abandonamos el mundo rural, el mundo rural pasa factura y donde antes había ciudadanos europeos cuidando del territorio, del campo, de nuestros bosques, ahora no hay nada ni nadie. Mientras los agricultores se les imponen numerosas trabas para cultivar la tierra y encima provocamos que el tomate, por ejemplo, venga de Marruecos, un país que invade a Europa, pues lógicamente nuestros campos van a seguir ardiendo. Hagamos una verdadera reflexión, agradezcamos en este momento a quienes han ayudado a combatir el fuego, a la prevención, especialmente permítanmelo en Las Hurdes, en mi tierra, y exijamos a la Comisión que extraiga conclusiones de lo que está pasando, en particular de estos incendios, que estudiemos cómo podemos prevenirlo y que hagamos que sea más efectivo para que tragedias como las que hemos vivido este verano en Europa no se repitan anualmente año tras año. Gracias.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you, Chair, I will speak Italian. E vi ringrazio di questo momento di confronto e vorrei semplicemente cominciare a chiarire due aspetti. Uno, non è ideologico chiedere di agire in prevenzione, che sia chiaro, rispetto alla crisi climatica e rispetto agli incendi. Due, non è semmai è ideologico continuare a parlare dentro queste aule esprimendo l'estrema solidarietà nei confronti di chi ha rischiato la propria vita e la sta rischiando per proteggere persone e natura e ambiente e attività e al contempo votare atti in cui si continuano a autorizzare deroghe su deroghe nella lotta alla crisi climatica, alla lotta alle emissioni, nell'agire per gradi contro la crisi climatica e non agire con forza oggi, nel togliere risorse per questi obiettivi. Per cui è importante anche battersi il petto e però capire nello stesso tempo qual è anche la nostra diretta responsabilità come politici in tutto questo, in un contesto politico in cui anche alte cariche dello Stato, come per esempio quelle italiane, dicono che in questa crisi climatica è necessario soltanto abituarsi a vivere in un clima caraibico.
Attenzione, quindi c'è una disinformazione, un'ignoranza e un'ideologia da parte di chi continua a dirci che possiamo tranquillamente agire per gradi. E tutto questo per quanto riguarda gli incendi in un settore in cui continuiamo a chiedere a vigili del fuoco e volontari della protezione civile di intervenire nonostante non abbiano nemmeno le sufficienti tutele da un punto di vista normativo e da un punto di vista sanitario. E tutto questo mentre si consente alle nostre regioni e alle autorità locali, come è successo nella mia regione, per dieci quindici anni di tagliare drasticamente le risorse a chi si occupa di prevenzione e della gestione forestale. Per cui da questa commissione che si occupa di sviluppo territoriale dobbiamo garantire dobbiamo esigere che i fondi di coesione eccetera vengano utilizzati per garantire adeguate risorse per la continuità di presa in carico dei nostri territori a partire dalle foreste con adeguato personale, non un taglio netto di chi si occupa dell'attività di prevenzione. E tutto questo di fronte a un bilancio che nel futuro raddoppierà sì in termini reali le risorse per la gestione della Union Civil Protection Mechanism eccetera, ma fuso con la preparazione sanitaria di EU4Health e quindi cosa significa?
Significa che il rischio è che non ci saranno l'obbligatorietà di stanziare risorse per l'attività di prevenzione.
La Corte dei conti europea ce l'ha detto chiaramente e qui dobbiamo intervenire noi che abbiamo la possibilità di votare su questo aspetto. Non c'è indicazione chiara di alcuna ripartizione tra prevenzione, preparazione e risposta. Dobbiamo quindi, il rischio quindi è che non solo ci sia una sovrapposizione tra fondi, ma è che si faccia così come si è sempre fatto: si agisce dopo che l'emergenza e i morti sono avvenuti e non in attività di prevenzione. Sappiamo già che brucerà la nostra terra, l'abbiamo visto. Se fossimo seri metteremmo a bilancio il rischio in anticipo.
La scienza e i dati ce li dà e oltre a questo cominciamo a interrogarci rispetto a quanto il nostro approccio estremamente anticlimatico e liberale ci sta portando verso la mancanza di tutele e la mancanza di lotta preventiva ai rischi climatici. Grazie.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We finish with Ms. Firmih, un-affiliated member at our committee.
Ruth Firmenich
Vielen Dank. Ich glaube, wir haben alle erlebt in diesem Sommer, dass es ein riesiges Klimaproblem gibt und ich muss sagen, dass ich diese Debatte hier etwas wohlfeil finde, weil es klar ist, dass wenn wir von preparedness in der EU reden, eigentlich grundsätzlich immer nur noch die preparedness für einen aus meiner Sicht sehr vermeidbaren potenziellen Krieg die Rede ist. Die öffentlichen Kassen sind leer und zwar sind sie deswegen leer, weil unendliche Summen in Rüstung und in Kriegsvorbereitung fließen und das ist bekanntlich der größte Klimakiller überhaupt. Und das, was die EU sich auf die Fahnen schreiben müsste, ist etwas ganz anderes, nämlich eine Priorität zu setzen tatsächlich für die Zukunftsthemen und das ist, dass man dafür sorgen muss, dass Frieden herrscht, dass die bestehenden Konflikte friedlich gelöst werden und dass man sich tatsächlich global für eine Klärung dessen einsetzt, was tatsächlich ansteht, nämlich die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Und das fängt zum Beispiel bei preparedness auch bei den Sozialausgaben an, also wenn ich komme aus Deutschland und wir hatten einen sehr heißen Sommer und wenn es in den Altersheimen und in den Krankenhäusern noch nicht mal möglich ist, Klimaanlagen zu haben, ist das einfach das Ende alles dessen, was man sich als europäisches Sozialmodell oder sowas vorstellt, während immense Summen in Rüstung und Krieg investiert werden.
Vielen Dank.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Mr. Alessandro Valdambrini, Deputy Head of Unit, DG ECHO.
Alessandro Valdambrini
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, honorable members. I would like to start by thanking you for inviting the Commission in this important debate. This afternoon, my Commissioner will also be at the debate in the ENVI Committee on the same topics because this is something that it really matters for all of us, as it has been already said in the debate. And the available data clearly demonstrate the relevance of the work that we have been carrying out with Member States over the past years on improving prevention, strengthening our response capacity and investing in preparedness.
This year, the wildfire season started exceptionally early, with the Netherlands and Czech Republic requesting assistance already at the end of April and beginning of May, followed by Portugal and Spain at the beginning of July. So far, more than 600,000 hectares have been already burnt in the EU and this is unfortunately another record-breaking figure because it is more than twice than average, the average of the last, of the past 20 years. So it is true that if we see the global number of hectares, 2022 and 2025 were more destructive, but unfortunately the season is not over yet. And 16 EU Member States have recorded burnt areas above their national average for this time of the year, with several experienced record-breaking levels.
Following last year's fire season, the Commission further deepened its work going beyond the operational dimension. So let me remind you that we adopted a communication on the and a proposal for Council recommendation on wildfires integrated risk management. Because the message is clear: the wildfire risk cannot be addressed by firefighting alone. We need all the policy areas, all the actors working together, from landscape and forest management, risk communication, civil protection, research and innovation to prevention and preparedness. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism has been and remains on the frontline, monitoring the situation, liaising with all the participating states and facilitating the deployment of resources wherever needed.
So far, the UCPM has been activated this year 10 times in Europe and twice outside Europe in response to wildfires. Our Emergency Response Coordination Centre coordinated the deployment of 40 aerial firefighting assets and 18 ground firefighting teams in Europe. The two most complex wildfires operations took place in Spain and in France in July, with simultaneous wildfires burning huge areas of forest and leading to the evacuation of around 300,000 people. But the EU responded. 11 aircraft deployed by seven countries were mobilized for France.
For Spain, we had six aircraft, 134 personnel and 41 vehicles that were deployed, including numerous planes and helicopters from the EU rescue fleet. And the most recent activation, of course, of the UCPM occurred in Belgium, when we unfortunately seen the biggest wildfire in history, and Serbia. Belgium activated the mechanism on 15 of August and again the European solidarity worked because assistance was provided by Spain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Please then allow me to use this opportunity to thank all the countries that responded to the UCPM request, but also as it was already mentioned, all the work of the firefighters and also volunteers from local community, people working in agriculture, because all this work has been and it is unfortunately absolutely essential to fight against forest fires. But we know that these wildfires were fueled by exceptionally hot and dry condition.
Drought have been widespread across Europe since the beginning of the summer, exacerbated by exceptional heat associated with at least four heatwaves since May. In June and July, temperatures broke one record after another and exceeded 40 degrees in many countries across Western and Central Europe. Millions of people were affected and the consequences go far beyond the fires: agriculture, infrastructure and ecosystems have suffered, while health, energy, transport and education system have also been disrupted. So through the ERCC, of course, we remain vigilant and this support is not only about facilitating deployments. We use science and data, like the Copernicus Emergency Management Services, whose geospatial data provide invaluable information, often serving as one of the most, if not the sole reliable source of information in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
And so far this summer, we produced more than 400 maps, and these maps on wildfires, of course, they are shared with national civil protection authorities to support their work.
And let me tell you that for the fifth year in a row the ERCC also put in place a prepositioning scheme for the wildfire season allocating almost 800 firefighters from 14 European countries to key high-risk location in Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Italy and Portugal. And and so far 180 intervention had already been concluded by these preposition teams. This is something that we should all be very proud. It is a European solidarity working on the ground before a disaster becomes even worse. We also have a dedicated rescue fleet of firefighting aircraft that is available this summer, 18 airplanes and five helicopters including the first one fully financed by the EU stationed in 11 member states and one participating state.
In addition there are four pre-committed aircraft under the European Civil Protection Pool. But this wildfire season is again a stark reminder of why we need the rescue and this preposition why we need disasters and why we need more assets actually for response operations across the EU. The next MFF will therefore be crucial for securing these additional assets foreseen under the initial 2019 rescue strategy but not yet funded due to a lack of resources. So four additional helicopters on top of the aircraft are already under procurement. Every year we talk about the current wildfire season be the worst on record.
This should make us ask ourselves whether a more ambitious approach is needed to ensure that we are adequately well equipped for the years to come. And this is something that should guide us in the context of the UCPM HERA and multi-annual financial framework regulation. Because preparedness has a cost as has been mentioned. But the cost of not being prepared is significantly higher and simply we cannot afford it. I would also like to update you about the rescue permanent fleet because the production of 12 rescue aircraft is on track with the first delivery expected in early 2028.
In parallel procurement of five helicopters is ongoing with the first helicopter having been already deployed recently against the fires in Serbia which is a UCPM participating state. There was also some MEPs that mentioned the use of the of the cohesion funds. So colleagues from DG REGIO kindly kindly provided me with some data because indeed cohesion policy is an important part of our response to the growing risk posed by climate change. It supports disaster risk management and climate adaptation with 14.6 billion euros of which 13.5 are dedicated to climate risk. And these investments cover both prevention and preparedness.
They support measures such as awareness raising campaign, prevention infrastructure, disaster improving of building and networks and the management of land, forest and rivers. In particular on forest fires cohesion policy provides more than 2.2 billion in EU funding for forest fire prevention and response supporting preparedness measures such as aircraft and training for civil protection units at national level as well as prevention measures such as forest management. Important also to say that the cohesion policy also try to address the problems links to heatwaves.
Because heatwaves of course they have a link with wildfires, but there is also a lot of consequences for social cohesion, health. And the cohesion policy can support the green infrastructure and nature-based solution, including urban forest, green roof and restored wetlands, while also helping to climate-proof critical infrastructure and strengthen resilience to extreme heat. So these are just of course some some of the some some part of the the actual prevention, preparedness and response action of the European Commission. There was Mr. Arimont mentioned the issue of the restore mechanism that ended in December 2025. Indeed, this mechanism ended ended on 31st of December 25 as stipulated in the amended cohesion policy legislation, and this deadline was part was set as part of a broader compromise reached with the co-legislators, and any changes to the existing legislation would require a new legislative process involving of course the European Parliament and the Council.
But let me remind you that of course while the restore mechanism is no longer available, other EU funds and instrument may still be utilized to address the impact of these disasters. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much. We are in late with the vote. Thank you very much for this intense and lively debate. And I promise you we stay focused on this issue. We going directly to the vote.
The first vote concerns the two budgetary amendments submitted to the REGI Committee in the context of the annual budgetary procedure for 2027. The text of the amendments was circulated to members last week. We'll start with the first amendment. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Abstention? Adopted. The second amendment. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. The amendments approved will be tabled to plenary by 3 September this year on behalf of REGI Committee. We continue our voting session with the draft opinion on establish establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programs and activities. During the work on the opinion, 772 amendments have been tabled and 19 compromise amendments have been negotiated between the political groups.
I would like to thank Ms. Raquel García Hermida, the rapporteur, as well as the shadows rapporteurs for the work done on preparing the compromise amendments. Ms. García Hermida, you want to take the floor?
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Very briefly, Chair, as we are running very late. I would like to thank the colleagues for staying here for this important vote. I want to take this moment just to thank my co-rapporteurs for the the spirit of compromise throughout the negotiations. It wasn't easy. There were a lot of amendments tabled.
I think that we have ended up with a good, strong text which protects some of the basic principles that we wanted to have into this regulation, among them and particularly, I think important to all of us, simplification for final beneficiaries, for those regions, municipalities, organizations that will have to implement the funds. I would also like to recall, as some colleagues have said, that I'm very happy that we have managed to protect the principles of do no significant harm in the text because I think that the events of this summer show that we have to keep working on our fight against climate change and do no significant harm belongs there. And I would also like to have very warm words of appreciation for the secretariat, for your team and of course for my team, my own team and those group advisors of Renew. All with all, thank you so much for your support throughout the process and I hope that we can clear a good text. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
We will now proceed to the vote. We start with amendment compromise of amendment number two.
Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. We're going to amendment number three.
Who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. We're going to compromise number five. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number six. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise number eight, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise number nine, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise fourteen, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise fifteen, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise sixteen, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise seventeen, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise eighteen, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise nineteen, final compromise.
Kadri Uustal
Islands are special and islands are important. The Commission adopted its communication for EU islands on the 10th of June. EU islands are home to more than 17 million people across over 4,000 inhabited islands, but we have almost 27,000 islands. EU islands are remarkably diverse, each with its own characteristics and strengths. At the same time, they face structural challenges linked to insularity.
The Commission, through its sectoral policies, helps islands address many of their specific challenges and creates opportunities to harness their socio-economic potential in line with Article 174 of the Treaty. While these policies have made significant contributions, their impact could be strengthened through a more coherent approach, which this strategy tries to do. This need for a more coherent approach was reflected in the Commission's political priorities and translated into a commitment in the mission letter of Executive Vice-President Fito. The adoption of this strategy marks an important milestone in the EU territorial development. In this context, I would also like to thank the European Parliament for being a long-standing advocate for EU islands, for your continuous efforts to keep the specific needs and challenges of islands high on the EU policy agenda.
The islands strategy of the EU was not developed in isolation. We had a call for evidence and received around 360 contributions, including feedback, policy papers, studies from island communities, public authorities, private entities, NGOs, and other stakeholders. These contributions played an important role, among other things, by showing the commitment and great interest that all stakeholders had in an EU-level strategy for islands. The aim of the strategy is to establish a coordinated framework for island development, to guide EU action and support member states in designing and implementing policies that better respond to island needs. The strategy is structured around four pillars, and these are policy pillars, each addressing key areas for the development of EU islands.
I will highlight a few actions for each pillar, but of course the full list is available in the document. Firstly, in the economic development, connectivity, competitiveness, and innovation area, the Commission aims to improve the understanding of the economic impact of insularity by launching an in-depth analysis of the cost of insularity. And I would like to highlight this particularly, the OECD has done very good work on this, and we hope that this will help to educate any further future discussions on policies relevant to islands if we can come with more measured cost of insularity and provide better arguments. The Commission aims also to explore ways to better address island-specific challenges through the ongoing reviews of the emissions trading system and the FuelEU Maritime regulation and state aid frameworks. In the area of energy security, environmental protection, green transition, and climate resilience, the Commission will continue supporting islands on their path towards a clean energy transition by extending the Clean Energy for EU Islands initiative until 2030.
The Commission also aims to facilitate regular dialogue between member state authorities responsible for the energy transition in islands and promote the exchange and replication of best practices and proven solutions.
In the area of communities, demography and quality of life, the Commission will support public authorities in improving access to affordable and sustainable housing by reducing administrative barriers and enabling targeted measures where housing affordability is under pressure. In the area of security and crisis preparedness for islands, also relevant to the discussion you just held here, the Commission aims to strengthen the security and resilience of island ports to support priority investments that improve island connectivity and resilience and strengthen cooperation on disaster preparedness and emergency response and replication of successful resilience solutions. Very importantly, we also have a horizontal, an overarching pillar, which kind of talks about the enablers for any policy objectives. And this horizontal pillar underpins the four policy pillars and stresses the importance of multi-level governance and place-based approach to policy design and implementation. In this area, the Commission will improve the availability and use of island-specific data to inform policy making and ensure that the impacts of new EU initiatives on islands are considered early in the policy development process.
The Commission will promote dialogue and the exchange of experience on island development by organizing a biennial island forum and technical dialogues on island-related policies. The Commission will also support Member States in tailoring and implementing reforms and investments addressing the needs of islands in their future national and regional partnership plans. Now, I've been mentioning the commitments Commission has taken on itself in the strategy, but the strategy and the Commission also calls on the Member States to pay better attention to islands at national level. Member States are invited to better reflect island needs in their policies and make full use of available EU instruments and funding. The Commission stands ready to support them in these efforts.
We see the adoption of the strategy as an important step. It's not a final destination, it's a milestone, as I mentioned, to enhance, to deepen, to widen the EU-level policy discussion on islands and to support it with better data and analysis. Thank you very much.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We continue with Ms. Iglicka-Jakova, the representative of DG MARE, the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Deputy Head of Unit. Ms. Iglicka-Jakova, you have the floor.
Iglika Yakova
Thank you very much. I'm going to present the other strategy, the strategy on prosperous, resilient, livable communities. This is the other pillar, the other leg of this package on islands and communities. The strategy on coastal community is one of the six priorities of the European Ocean Pact that was adopted in 2025, and it addresses coastal communities both on the mainland and on islands, with a focus on traditional and emerging blue economy sectors such as tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, blue innovation, ports, etc. This is the first time that there is an EU strategy on resilient, prosperous and livable coastal communities.
It places needs, wishes and concerns of the people living in the coast at the center under a single coherent framework. So far, the unique opportunities and challenges of coastal communities have not been adequately addressed in the EU's territorial development approaches. For example, coastal communities have a particularly high economic potential for developing the blue economy, for strengthening ocean observation, but they are also amongst the most vulnerable, vulnerable to climate change while playing a crucial role in preservation and restoration of marine ecosystems. And acknowledging this importance to ensure and strengthen coastal communities as vibrant, inclusive and attractive places and their role in the heritage, the European maritime heritage, is key for the prosperity of these areas.
This strategy provides a single framework to better serve the needs of coastal communities in the EU. It also has two concrete value added for them. It proposes 13 concrete flagship actions which aim to support coastal communities at EU level. And second, the strategy will be an important strategic tool for ensuring that policy development and funding at EU and national level serve the needs of coastal communities in the future, including in the context of the next MFF. The communication proposes 13 flagship actions to deliver the three main objectives of the communication.
I mentioned them already, it's prosperity, prosperous communities, resilience, resilient communities and liveability, liveable communities and improved quality of life. Some examples of key flagships are the following. Supporting the development of a certification methodology as a next step towards blue carbon credits, supporting the creation of blue economy clusters, value chains in coastal communities through a community-led local development approach within the future EU blue bioeconomy innovation initiative. We will also ensure that needs and involvement of coastal communities is well reflected in several upcoming key initiatives including the Ocean Act, the Vision for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2040 and the Ocean Eye. Updating the Atlantic maritime strategy considering of a new macro-regional framework and creating a new Eastern Mediterranean sea basin strategy is also in the making.
The strategy provides for the first time a unified, coherent framework for the development and the resilience of coastal areas. This will help coherent policy development. This will help implementation for coastal communities. This will help address their specific challenges and needs so that member states better reflect the needs of coastal communities in the development of their national and regional partnership plans. And one last question on the administrative burden, the strategy does not propose additional reporting obligation, additional administrative burden, but on the contrary, in fact it supports the work of the Commission to simplify and reduce administrative burden by having a more integrated strategic approach on territorial development.
Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président d'avoir organisé ce premier échange de vues. Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier la Commission européenne et en particulier le vice-président Rafale de Fito d'avoir honoré l'engagement qu'il avait pris devant notre commission de développement régional de proposer une stratégie européenne pour les îles telle que le Parlement européen l'avait demandé dans le rapport d'initiative adopté lors de la dernière législature que j'avais eu l'honneur de porter. Et nous avions considéré que les îles jusqu'à maintenant avaient été d'une certaine manière les grandes oubliées des politiques européennes.
Lorsque vous regardez l'article 174 du traité, vous observez évidemment que nous avons beaucoup travaillé pour les zones rurales, les zones faiblement peuplées, enfin tout ce qui est indiqué dans l'article 174, mais que nous nous fracassions toujours concernant les îles avec une difficulté de reconnaissance de leur singularité, de leur particularité dans les instruments et dans les politiques de l'Union européenne. C'est ce que nous voulions corriger en appelant la Commission européenne à proposer une stratégie. Et nous avions dit à l'époque que l'Europe est un archipel qui s'ignore et que cette dimension insulaire devait être prise en compte. Et puis il y a aussi la dimension maritime et la dimension côtière extrêmement importante. Si vous regardez une carte du monde, vous noterez que l'Europe est sans doute le continent du monde le plus découpé avec le plus grand nombre d'ouvertures maritimes et de façades maritimes.
Îles, côtes, ouvertures maritimes, d'abord cela dit la force que nous devons tirer de cette ouverture maritime, de cette puissance insulaire dans une géopolitique nouvelle qui est en train de naître aujourd'hui sous nos yeux et qui nous commande de replacer les îles, de replacer les zones côtières, de replacer les zones maritimes au cœur même des priorités pour l'Europe. Les îles comme les zones côtières sont une grande force pour l'Union européenne si elle se pense en tant que puissance. Donc dans le rapport que je proposerai, il y aura cette dimension, cette dimension géopolitique qui me semble tout à fait essentielle. La deuxième chose que je veux vous dire sans rentrer trop dans les détails, c'est que l'insularité bien sûr c'est beaucoup de difficultés. Et nous devons aujourd'hui penser à régler un certain nombre de problèmes qui ont été posés par les régions insulaires tout au long du déploiement de la dernière programmation des fonds et nous ferons des propositions évidemment concernant la meilleure prise en compte des surcoûts que génère l'insularité.
Nous ferons des propositions concernant les aides d'État évidemment où nous avons toujours appelé avec Siri-Ca d'ailleurs à ce que soit pris en compte qu'il y ait beaucoup plus de souplesse pour les îles. Et puis ce rapport arrive au moment de l'élaboration du PPNR et là encore nous demanderons que ces stratégies concernant les îles et concernant les régions maritimes et côtières, et bien que l'on en tire les conséquences dans le PPNR avec des lignes directrices qui puissent être données aux États membres pour que évidemment ces zones, ces îles puissent être regardées de manière prioritaire.
Toutes les... les travaux que nous avons menés lors de la dernière législature nous ont montré que la question des données est extrêmement importante concernant les îles. Nous avons plusieurs fois eu des débats ici devant notre commission, par exemple pendant la période du COVID, où nous nous posions la question : est-ce qu'il y a une plus grande fragilité des îles, est-ce qu'il y a une plus grande fragilité de ces régions devant les crises et devant les catastrophes ? Et donc nous avons besoin de données, et avec la Commission européenne, peut-être que nous pouvons avancer sur un observatoire européen de l'insularité. C'est une proposition que je ferai et qui sera appelée à être mise en discussion, de la même manière que nous considérons, et cela est vrai aussi pour les régions ultrapériphériques de l'Union, que nous devons mesurer en amont l'impact des législations sur les territoires insulaires et les adapter lorsque cela est nécessaire. Donc une sorte d'Island Proofing, je pense que cela est absolument nécessaire et nous travaillerons à des propositions en ce sens.
Bref, vous l'avez compris, ce rapport était attendu par l'ensemble des insulaires, en Méditerranée en particulier. Je m'étais rendu en Sicile, en Sardaigne, en Corse, en Croatie, dans beaucoup de régions insulaires ou d'États qui sont concernés par les îles, Chypre également. Il y avait une attente de reconnaissance d'abord de l'insularité. Et la proposition de la Commission satisfait d'abord à cette reconnaissance. Je crois que c'est important et nous devons maintenant franchir une étape supplémentaire en changeant peut-être notre manière de travailler et puis en ayant des mesures beaucoup plus concrètes.
Et puis bien évidemment, s'agissant de la dimension côtière et maritime, elle arrive dans ce moment où nous savons tous que la question des ports, la question des routes commerciales, des routes maritimes sont absolument décisives. Et nous attendons avec beaucoup d'intérêt les propositions de la commission TRAN qui fera un avis sur notre rapport et qui viendra sans doute compléter les dimensions qui n'auront pas été prises en compte par la commission REGI puisque visant exclusivement les aspects transport, sans minorer aussi tout ce qui concerne le tourisme. Et puis puisque le membre du Comité économique et social européen est présent, Stéphane Buffetaut, nous attendons également avec beaucoup d'intérêt les travaux du Comité économique et social qui, je veux le rappeler, a également demandé lors de la dernière législature qu'on puisse avoir une politique beaucoup plus intégrée pour les îles et les régions côtières. Vous pouvez compter sur ma pleine disponibilité pour travailler avec l'ensemble des rapporteurs fictifs à ce rapport d'initiative sur cette stratégie.
Merci beaucoup.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We continue with shadow rapporteurs and we start with EPP, Ms. Lekalenez.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président. J'interviens au nom de notre collègue Frédéric Béleris qui est notre shadow PPE. Les îles et les communautés côtières ne sont pas des territoires périphériques. Elles constituent la ligne de front de l'Europe sur les plans géographique, économique, environnemental et géopolitique. Or les citoyens et les entreprises de ces territoires insulaires continuent de faire face à un coût de l'insularité qu'il faut effectivement mesurer.
Des coûts de transport et d'énergie plus élevés, des biens plus chers, des marchés plus restreints et un accès plus limité à la ressource en eau, aux soins de santé, à l'éducation et aux services publics. Par exemple, une liaison par ferry ou aérienne équivaut à une route ou à une ligne ferroviaire sur un continent. Nous avons donc besoin de liaisons maritimes et aériennes fiables tout au long de l'année et de liaisons inter-îles solides, mais aussi d'une connectivité numérique et de ports résilients. Les îles et les régions côtières sont également essentielles à la sécurité et à la résilience de l'Europe. Elles sont confrontées à l'instabilité géopolitique, aux pressions migratoires, aux menaces hybrides, aux perturbations des infrastructures et des catastrophes naturelles.
Le changement climatique les frappe régulièrement : inondations, sécheresse, pénurie d'eau, feux de forêt. La sécurité de l'approvisionnement en eau doit devenir une priorité européenne grâce notamment au dessalement alimenté par des énergies renouvelables ou décarbonées, à la réutilisation de l'eau et à une gestion intelligente à la préparation aux sécheresses. Enfin, n'oublions pas la pêche artisanale. Merci à la Commission et à la DG MARE pour ses propos. Les pêcheurs ne sont pas seulement des acteurs économiques, et c'est la membre de la commission de la pêche qui vous le dit, ils garantissent la sécurité alimentaire, préservent le savoir-faire maritime et l'identité culturelle, ils assurent une présence humaine permanente en mer.
Alors la nouvelle stratégie de l'Union pour les îles reconnaît explicitement la nécessité de remédier aux désavantages structurels et de favoriser ce qui nous tient à cœur ici en commission REGI, le droit de rester. C'est un premier pas et nous remercions Raffaele Fitto qui a tenu effectivement sa promesse d'y travailler, mais les constats ne suffiront pas. Une stratégie qui serait dépourvue d'actions concrètes et de ressources dédiées risquerait de se transformer en un simple catalogue de bonnes intentions. Les îles ont des spécificités qui imposent d'adapter les règles européennes et de dégager des financements prévisibles et à la hauteur. Nous y veillerons dans le cadre des discussions sur le futur budget de l'Union et le règlement performance bien évidemment.
Et donc nous avons hâte de pouvoir travailler sur le rapport de notre collègue Omarjee. Je vous remercie.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, I'm taking the floor on behalf of my S&D colleague Nora Mebarek, who is our shadow rapporteur of this report, and she cannot be with us today, but she has asked me to convey the following points. First of all, a welcome recognition, but it must not stay symbolic. A dedicated strategy acknowledging the permanent handicaps of our islands and coastal regions under Article 174 is a victory of this Parliament long called for. But recognition on the paper is not enough.
Islanders and coastal communities need means, not simply intentions.
The strategy merely invites Member States and relies on existing envelopes, the 2.5 billion already programmed under cohesion policy for 2021-2027, with no new money and no binding targeting. The NRRP is where this will be decided and where the risk lies. Its centralising logic means that without guaranteed ring-fencing, the most fragile territories will be the first sacrificed in the budget arbitrations. That's why Mrs. Mevarek has proposed a dedicated binding chapter for these territories in the NRRP regulation. Cohesion cannot carry this alone.
Mrs. Mevarek will push for a transversal insularity clause and a territorial impact test binding on every EU policy, state aid rules adapted to insularity, and explicit access to other funds: the future European Competitiveness Fund, Horizon Europe, and the Connecting Europe Facility. Finally, I want to say that this is about territorial justice and the right to stay. Nora Mevarek is of the view that wherever you are born, island, coast, or mainland, you should be able to live, work, and find housing where you feel at home. Our role as S&D group is to turn this strategy into concrete commitments, not only a catalogue of good intentions. Thank you very much.
Antonella Sberna
Grazie, Presidente, ben ritrovati a tutti. Innanzitutto concordo con le linee e le idee che ha presentato il relatore, anche nel ringraziare il vicepresidente Fitto per essersi impegnato a proporre questa strategia per le isole e per le coste e per averla proposta al Parlamento. Veniva attesa da anni e quindi finalmente abbiamo la possibilità di discuterne. È arrivata, ed è arrivata anche in maniera operativa perché è partita dall'ascolto dei territori lanciando una consultazione pubblica e sono arrivati centinaia di contributi dalle regioni, dalle associazioni di categoria, dalle amministrazioni, dai corpi intermedi di tutta Europa. E noi abbiamo lavorato anche in quel momento proprio sollecitando il più possibile l'invio di posizioni, l'invio di richieste, l'invio di questioni da affrontare.
Noi chiaramente siamo a disposizione per trovare e fare in modo che quello che uscirà da questa commissione e poi dal Parlamento possa essere la strategia più rispondente possibile anche alle esigenze della politica di coesione, che poi è quella che sottostà al lavoro della nostra commissione. Io ringrazio appunto le due esponenti della Commissione per aver illustrato anche la prospettiva verso la quale si va. Io, Presidente, se posso, sollevo due o tre punti che poi avremo cura di inviare al relatore chiedendo di prendere in considerazione queste valutazioni. Innanzitutto, appunto, il vicepresidente Fitto ha indicato le prelocazioni destinate alle regioni meno sviluppate come canale principale per le isole, che è un canale importante ma non basta. Perché io, appunto, lui diceva è stato in Sardegna, in Sicilia, in Corsica, eccetera, la Regione Autonoma della Sardegna lo dice in modo, insomma, convincente nell'invio del suo parere, e cioè che l'insularità non è uno svantaggio congiunturale, ma è una condizione oggettiva e permanente dei territori insulari, appunto.
E quindi il PIL pro capite può cambiare, le distanze ovviamente no.
E quindi il nostro rapporto deve dovrebbe dire con chiarezza che l'insularità e la condizione costiera vanno riconosciute come un criterio autonomo di allocazione ma qualcuno che mi ha preceduto ha già sostenuto questa questa tesi. C'è poi la questione che non nasce dalla politica di coesione ma che rischia di vanificare tanti dei nostri interventi e che non possiamo non prendere in considerazione che è la questione diciamo dell'ETS marittimo che è stato sollevato in tante delle osservazioni inviate perché ad esempio la direzione marittima di Cagliari ricorda che in Sardegna 43 milioni di tonnellate di merci e parliamo di una sola isola si muovono via mare tutte e che metà della flotta che serve l'isola ha una media di 30 anni. La stessa Confindustria in Sardegna ma insomma anche in altre isole stima in oltre 150 milioni di euro l'anno i costi aggiuntivi di tutto questo. Quindi la deroga esiste si ferma però i 200.000 abitanti e scade nel 2030 e quindi alcune isole come la Sicilia e la Sardegna ne restano fuori proprio perché paradossalmente sono grandi e proprio l'articolo 174 impegna l'Unione a tenere conto delle regioni insulari in tutto e questo. Dopodiché appunto chiediamo che il rapporto lo affermi anche in vista della revisione dell'ETS perché non ha senso investire da una parte in coesione che è quello che noi vogliamo fare ma dall'altra poi aumentare un costo dell'insularità con un altro mezzo.
E poi la capacità di spesa di alcune regioni che sollecitano un programma di assistenza tecnica per i comuni perché poi una volta stanziate le risorse c'è bisogno anche che le isole che spesso sono fatte da comuni molto piccoli possano avere le risorse umane e quindi le capacità per poterli attrarre. E chiudo con una raccomandazione che raccolgo dal mondo della pesca. Importante diversificare ma chiaramente non sostituire perché se orientiamo le risorse verso il turismo le comunità che vivono di pesca perdono identità patrimonio e sicurezza alimentare. Siccome credo che l'obiettivo di tutti sia quello di fare una strategia seria che promuova il diritto a restare e quindi tutti i punti che abbiamo letto nella presentazione sono importanti la connettività la demografia lo sviluppo economico siamo veramente disponibili a lavorare affinché ci siano idee serie magari non 100 idee ma poche idee ben fatte e che possano poi trovare rispondenza anche nel futuro nel futuro quadro finanziario pluriennale. Grazie.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you Chair. This is an incredibly important debate for our citizens and in this context I welcome Commissioner Fito's first ever EU strategies for islands and coastal communities as presented to us in June. Our islands and coastal regions face specific challenges: depopulation, inadequate services, seasonal employment, the list could go on. In Ireland our island populations are small but have a huge impact on our culture and our heritage and as some of the EU's most westerly points they face unique challenges. Connectivity is often the biggest hurdle for our islands and I'm glad to see the Commission's island strategy highlights two key tools in this context.
Number one: the state aid frameworks that allow member states to tailor support for the high cost of airports and ports serving islands. This is very important. And number two: the exemption under the ETS directive and the FuelEU Maritime regulation to ensure islands' connectivities. I will work with the rapporteur to ensure these remain priorities. I've engaged widely across my constituency in the course of discussing this issue and during that engagement Sinead Callahan, island manager on Inish Turk, and Joanne Carr, community development coordinator on Clare Island off the coast of Ireland, both stressed to me the urgent need to protect their island communities and their connectivity.
And yes, port and pier investment really remains inadequate for them at the moment. In my member state, for many years, I've seen it myself, the infrastructure at Roonagh Pier was wholly inadequate. Last year, significant erosion caused part of the structure to split in two. Local man Chris Maxwell came here to Brussels seeking emergency aid and sought the assistance of the Irish government to keep the people of the island in touch. And while I'm glad to see resources allocated to remedial works, to remedial works, this is only one piece of a broader problem in relation to numerous other piers needing attention along the west coast as well as the islands themselves.
Colleagues, we all know we're experiencing a housing crisis and many of our regions are experiencing depopulation. However, these crises were made worse on our islands due to high construction costs and limited planning flexibility. So I look forward to the Commission's upcoming right to stay proposal and the 2027 housing simplification package. But I also say we cannot wait until 2027. In its island strategy, the Commission rightly calls on member states to simplify planning for the islands and to use public procurement flexibilities.
We must implement these simplifications without delay. And of course, Chair, Ireland faces many of these challenges itself as an island member state. These have been well highlighted in recent weeks for me, when Irish farmers' ability to export their cattle was greatly reduced due to a decision by Brittany Ferries to no longer take Irish cattle on their ships. An extraordinary decision by a so-called farmer-friendly company in Breton to take away this facility from a colleague. As an island nation, we're simply at the mercy of these companies.
I will go to Roscoff next Monday to tackle Brittany Ferries on this issue. They cannot walk away and abandon an island like that. This comes alongside the hammer blow of Brexit to Irish businesses. The UK land bridge was a lifeline to so many Irish companies and Brexit shattered that, leaving behind a trail of paperwork and queues at our border. So let's ensure that when we look to the western points of Europe, we do not see empty piers and homes, but thriving communities at the heart of our Union, Chair.
Our islands have kept our culture alive for centuries. It's time Europe returns that favor. Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Zahvaljujem i pozdravljam također u ime Zelenih novu strategiju Europske komisije vezanu za otoke i obale. Mislimo da je to dobar smjer i također se radujem raditi sa izvjestiteljem na ovoj temi, budući da dolazim iz zemlje koja evo ima preko tisuću otoka, vjerujem da ste mnogi od vas i posjetili neke. Ali naš zadatak ne samo da jednom godišnje odemo na otoke i tamo provedemo godišnji odmor, nego da osiguramo da ti otoci žive i kad mi odemo sa tih otoka i da nas dočekaju jednako lijepo i uspješno svake godine kada ćemo dolaziti ponovno na otoke. U razgovoru sa otočanima čak i ovo ljeto, u stvari znamo da su neke osnovne potrebe za koje se oni bore, a mi ćemo ih kao Parlament u tome sigurno podržati, jesu potreba da na otoku bude pitke vode, da bude dobre hrane, u zadnje vrijeme da imaju svoje stanove zbog velike turistifikacije otoka, ali isto tako i povezanost otoka. A što se tiče usluga, kao i sve druge zajednice, reći može da pojednostavim, otočani trebaju doktora, trebaju učitelja odgajatelja i trebaju svećenika.
Naravno mi kao Europski parlament nećemo se baviti svećenikom, ali sigurno im možemo osigurati da imaju doktora i učitelja odgajatelja, uz to i vrtiće, škole, javne bilježnike, veterinare i sve one neke bazične usluge koje imaju ljudi na kontinentu.
I već do sada kada se pogleda kako je kohezijska politika radila prema otocima, vidimo da jesu išla ulaganja u tom smjeru i to treba nastaviti. Al' ono gdje je naša velika prilika i o tome ću ja također inzistirati u našem INI izvješću, da vidimo kako novi budžet možemo još više iskoristiti za otoke. Znači da ne budu samo neka pravila i principi, nego da uistinu novac dođe još više do otoka. Zbog toga mislim da je jako važno da nastavimo inzistirati kroz ovo izvješće na jakom partnerskom principu, odnosno da otoci moraju biti i te kako dobro uključeni u realizaciju, odnosno u planiranje nacionalnih planova i regionalnih planova, da njihov glas bude za stolom i da se oni čuju. I isto tako da otoci, ulaganja u otoke ne budu na neki način promašena.
Uvijek ističem taj primjer iz Hrvatske kada se kroz Fond za oporavak i otpornost uložio se novac da se gradi hotel Hilton, privatni hotel Hilton na jednom otoku u Hrvatskoj. Dakle, ja bih volio da uistinu takve greške više ne ponavljamo, da privatnik koji ima licencu Hiltona bude nagrađen javnim novcem, 5 milijuna eura, da bi on gradio hotel Hilton, dok istovremeno taj otok ima potrebe, kao što smo rekli, i za doktorom, i za vodom, i za energijom i tako dalje. I ono gdje vidim da postoje jako velike prilike da otoci uistinu kao manje, a neke jesu i velike zajednice, budu samoodrživi, da principe cirkularne ekonomije tamo podržavamo koliko god možemo i naravno da energetski budu samodostatni kroz obnovljive izvore energije. Dolazeći iz mediteranske zemlje, apsolutno je sad jasno jedan kroz jedan da svaki otok može biti energetski samostalan i neovisan u stvari i od same nacionalne države. Jedna stvar oko stanovanja na otocima, i moj kolega Kieran je već o tome govorio, oko potrebe za simplifikacijom, ali ja bih stvarno bio ovdje oprezan, baš iz iskustva ovo ljeto provedenog na nekim od hrvatskih otoka.
Sad u strategiji kaže, citirat ću na engleskom: "Simplify islands' planning and permitting system, strengthening their administrative capacity and use public procurement flexibility to promote efficient housing provision." "Some examples include zoning additional land." Ajmo biti oprezni oko toga, jer znamo u kojem smjeru to može otići. Ako će to ići u smjeru da lokalne zajednice, javne lokalne zajednice imaju veću ovlast i jednostavnije da grade objekte za affordable housing, to je okej. Ali ovo je po meni i otvoreni poziv i daljem mnogim privatnim investitorima, mnogim hotelima, mnogim vilama koje bi se mogle izgraditi na otocima sa bazenima, koje ne znam s kojom vodom ćemo puniti, da ode se u tom smjeru.
I zato mislim da svaka priča oko simplifikacije mora uistinu imati dodatne mehanizme osiguravača da taj novac ponovno ne završi u privatnim džepovima investitora koji će na otocima graditi vile za turizam, a ne domove za stanovanje. I zadnje što želim reći, naravno, klimatske promjene, otočani ih osjećaju i te kako, i mi kao Zeleni ćemo tražiti što više da se to prepozna i da uistinu imaju dodatne mehanizme da se zaštite od klimatskih promjena. Evo, radujem se raditi na ovom izvješću. Hvala vam.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to the Commission and the rapporteur. I'm a coastal resident myself and have the largest islands of my member state right on my doorstep.
Therefore, I was the only member in the Transport Committee who advocated for addressing this initiative report also in TRAN with an opinion. So we will be addressing this topic in two committees. We also supported the initiative report on tourism by Daniel Attard, which focused on islands and coastal regions too. The strategy for islands and coastal regions lists key points relevant to the cohesion policy. The ESN group will pay particular attention to economic policies, housing, tourism, and fisheries, relying more on private initiatives than on EU regulation in both sectors, and more on incentives than rules.
If we want to ensure that the population does not suffer disadvantages simply because they live on islands or coastlines and want to continue living there, the keyword here is right to stay, we must provide the necessary resources. The infrastructure, bridges, ferries, transport routes is dilapidated and in need of repair in many regions. Therefore, we have already focused our attention on this within the CEF. Our ports are hubs for transport, trade, and increasingly security. For this reason, we supported a new initiative report on port strategy in the Transport Committee and will begin to work on that in October.
The maritime industry plays a central role, of course, and it must not be restricted by excessive and unrealistic regulations for the energy sector. We need innovation and growth in this area, not impractical ideologies and prohibitions. FuelEU and the ETS are the biggest obstacles to a strong development of this key economic and cohesion factor. Decarbonization fantasies must not lead to the further decline of our economy, and this applies particularly to the structurally disadvantaged island and coastal areas. One more point is the fisheries, and we will address this, of course, as well, because the fishery sector is suffering, as we all know, especially in my region.
So we look forward to the rapporteur's proposals and will contribute to constructive criticism here and in the opinion for the Transport Committee. Finally, we want to thank the Commission and Commissioner Fitto for the strategy so we can work on it. Thank you very much.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Obrigado, presidente. Eu serei relator sobre o papel da política de coesão na estratégia das regiões ultraperiféricas. Como sabemos, não estão incluídas nestas estratégias, mas oito em nove destas regiões são ilhas e todas são regiões costeiras. E os desafios são precisamente os mesmos. Já aqui falámos esta manhã das catástrofes naturais, dos incêndios, mas podemos falar também da subida do nível médio do mar ou da descarbonização, igualmente importante para combater e mitigar as alterações climáticas.
As ilhas e as regiões ultraperiféricas em particular podem funcionar como laboratórios. Mas para tudo isto é preciso investimento, capacidade financeira que as regiões ultraperiféricas não têm. Por outras palavras, aquilo que nós precisamos é de mais política de coesão, gestão descentralizada e não aquilo que vemos na atual proposta do quadro financeiro plurianual. Isto é válido para as duas estratégias aqui discutidas, para a estratégia sobre as regiões ultraperiféricas e também para a estratégia do Direito a Ficar, essencial para a coesão da União e para as futuras gerações. A par de tudo isto, o acesso à habitação, à saúde, ao emprego são também fundamentais para garantir os objetivos das ilhas e das suas populações.
Eu sou oriundo de uma ilha, de uma região ultraperiférica, a Madeira, e sei a importância fundamental que estas estratégias poderão ter para combater todos estes problemas estruturais que são comuns a todas as ilhas e a todas as regiões costeiras da União Europeia. Muito obrigado.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much. I will speak Italian again. Parto da un presupposto che diamo tutti per scontato: la coesione dovrebbe ridurre le disuguaglianze territoriali e non finanziare, anche indirettamente, modelli che creano questa disuguaglianza dentro al territorio. E quindi qui mi vorrei collegare ad un tema molto caldo che è la turistificazione. È frutto di una scelta politica ben precisa che riflette alla fin fine l'incapacità di pensare diversamente questi territori e in Italia lo sappiamo abbastanza bene.
Nel position paper della Conferenza Regioni Marittime e Periferiche, e cito, si dice: "Le isole e le coste sono comunità, non destinazioni stagionali." Overtourism e pressione abitativa sono problemi reali per i residenti. E quindi, volendo ringraziare i colleghi che stanno lavorando su questo posizionamento politico e su questa strategia, vorrei affrontare con voi un aspetto che è sostanziale. Quando si parla di overtourism si va dai diritti di base inaccessibili agli abitanti (sanità, trasporti, casa) all'uso senza limiti delle risorse naturali, penso per esempio all'acqua, fino alla privatizzazione di aree naturali per costruire resort, spesso per super ricchi, con anche annesse possibilità di speculazioni edilizie. E non è soltanto una questione di paesaggio, perché dietro ogni resort ci sono stagionali sottopagati, spiagge pubbliche che si riducono, case che diventano investimento speculativo e non diritto per chi vive.
E chi lavora tutto l'anno per far funzionare l'economia costiera non può spesso nemmeno goderne. Qualche esempio in questi mesi mi è giunto, insomma, attraverso diversi attivisti dei miei concittadini: Tavolara, Cala Finanza in Sardegna, Ostuni in Puglia, Ca' Roman in Veneto. Sono progetti che stanno sotto uno stesso schema: procedure per investimenti di realtà non sempre, come dire, connesse con il territorio, usate per generare turismo ricreativo o resort di lusso alle porte o dentro proprio in aree protette. E mentre nelle prime due il governo le autorizza senza nemmeno aspettare le valutazioni ambientali e i pareri delle istituzioni locali, nel terzo caso vediamo una regione e un comune che autorizzano il progetto sottodimensionando gravemente le conseguenze sugli habitat pur di evitare perdite economiche al privato. E questo non sta accadendo soltanto nel territorio italiano o europeo con altri casi simili, ma penso anche a quanto avviene in Albania con la rivolta dei fenicotteri.
Concludo. Questo è un ragionamento per mettere sul tavolo degli esempi, perché? Perché noi come parlamentari dobbiamo assicurarci che le risorse della coesione per isole e coste vadano principalmente a chi ci abita tutto l'anno e non diventino uno strumento, anche indiretto, per attirare investimenti immobiliari che escludono le comunità locali e che alla fine creano quasi zero valore aggiunto per l'economia locale. Anche questo è diritto a restare.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. And continues Ms. Garcia Hermida-van der Walle from Renew.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, chair. Ik ga in het Nederlands spreken vandaag, of nu. Ik heb een heel concrete vraag en ook een verzoek aan de rapporteur en de shadows voor een heel, heel specifiek punt. Net als bij andere eilanden overal in de Europese Unie hebben wij in Nederland met de Waddeneilanden echt problemen met de duurzame bereikbaarheid, dus toekomstgerichte en structurele bereikbaarheid van deze eilanden. Die staat onder druk en we weten dat de EU-regels voor state aid soms een beetje te strikt zijn misschien of te streng of gewoon in de weg staan van betere bereikbaarheid en steun voor die organen of bedrijven die dat kunnen garanderen.
Dus is mijn verzoek: kunnen jullie misschien daar aandacht aan besteden in het rapport en ook een verzoek aan de Commissie om met ideeën te komen om te kijken hoe wij dat beter kunnen regelen voor de bereikbaarheid van onze eilanden en hun inwoners? Dank u wel.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Mr. Nascimento Cabral from EPP. Remote. Remote. We have the connection?
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Okay. So, thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak by webstreaming and I will switch to Portuguese. Muito obrigado. Agradeço obviamente à Comissão a apresentação desta importante proposta.
É um bocadinho a correção do rumo que nós estávamos a sentir, de um excesso de centralização no quadro na proposta de quadro financeiro plurianual. A apresentação destas estratégias que são muito locais para as ilhas, para as zonas costeiras, vem corrigir aqui um bocadinho este princípio da centralização, valorizando aquilo que é o território na sua integralidade. Não podemos esquecer que temos 48.000 quilómetros de zona costeira e toda ela tem que ser obviamente tida em conta para limitar ou diminuir as nossas vulnerabilidades, garantir aqui planos estratégicos de desenvolvimento. Como já foi referido, não podem ser zonas apenas para atividade turística ou com casas e alojamento para turistas que depois se esvaziam e criam vazios nestas comunidades. Têm que ser comunidades vibrantes, comunidades de desenvolvimento económico e a aposta no setor das pescas, na economia azul é essencial.
Em relação às ilhas, nós temos aqui também um ativo estratégico da União Europeia que está um bocadinho disperso quase por todo o mundo e é fundamental valorizarmos as ilhas, mas também termos em consideração aquilo que são as suas dificuldades. E falo desde logo nas dificuldades das acessibilidades. A conectividade para com as ilhas, com aumentos dos custos de vida das populações destas ilhas é obviamente um problema que nós todos temos que ter em atenção. São dificuldades acrescidas que a fixação de população e de profissionais acarretam grandes esforços aos governos regionais, aos governos nacionais e que exigem uma atenção adequada da União Europeia. Também gostaria só de destacar dois novos pontos.
O primeiro tem a ver com a importância de mantermos instrumentos como, por exemplo, o Interreg, o Leader ou planos de desenvolvimento de base local. E aqui também saúdo o nosso relator, o Younous Omarjee, pela proposta do seu observatório para a insularidade que eu penso que é uma boa proposta. E também defender o princípio da subsidiariedade que é essencial. E gostaria também de destacar aquilo que também está referido na estratégia para as ilhas e zonas costeiras que tem a ver com uma nova estratégia para o Atlântico, criando uma macrorregião do Atlântico. Isso é essencial tendo em conta também aquilo que são os novos desafios geopolíticos em que o Atlântico cria aqui uma nova centralidade.
E termino mesmo referindo apenas essa questão das acessibilidades que são essenciais serem corrigidas. Nós temos ilhas que correm o risco de ficar praticamente isoladas ou pelo menos reféns de preços especulativos de companhias aéreas. E não podemos, não há ferrovia nas ilhas. A ferrovia das ilhas são os aviões e são os barcos. Muito obrigado, senhor presidente.
Stéphane BUFFETAUT
Thank you. Now I give the floor to Mr. Stefan Bijoux, rapporteur for opinion in the European Economic and Social Committee.
Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président du Parlement européen, cher Younous Omarjee, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, chers amis, dans votre réflexion aujourd'hui, je porte auprès de vous la voix de la société civile européenne.
Pour nous, au Comité économique et social européen, la nouvelle stratégie de l'Union européenne pour les îles n'est pas un dossier comme les autres. Pour des millions d'Européens, c'est à la fois une urgence et une priorité. Alors pour nous aussi, c'est une urgence et une priorité. Depuis longtemps, nous réclamons l'intégration d'une dimension insulaire dans l'élaboration des politiques publiques européennes. Dans sa proposition de stratégie, la Commission reconnaît la réalité de nos territoires : l'isolement géographique, les coûts élevés des transports et de l'énergie, les pressions démographiques, le prix de l'énergie, la très forte exposition, très forte exposition au dérèglement climatique.
Oui, la vie dans les îles est beaucoup plus compliquée, beaucoup plus chère, et l'insularité est un défi structurel qui impose non seulement la solidarité européenne, mais aussi un changement de regard sur les îles. Parce que les îles européennes sont aussi des leaders incontestés de l'économie bleue. Elles sont aussi pionnières dans la transition pour les énergies propres, pour la transition énergétique. Elles sont championnes pour l'innovation, pour la cohésion sociale. Oui, les îles sont des territoires de solutions.
La Commission le voit, le Parlement le confirme, et nous, au CESE, nous vous proposons d'aller encore plus loin. Premièrement, il nous faut impérativement un pacte pour les îles, soutenu par une loi sur les îles. Pourquoi ? Eh bien pour garantir que les réalités insulaires soient systématiquement prises en compte dans toutes les politiques européennes. Deuxièmement, la stratégie proposée aujourd'hui identifie bien les priorités, mais elle manque de mécanismes pour une mise en œuvre solide.
Il faut aussi des objectifs mesurables et un soutien financier spécifique. Troisièmement, le CESE soutient fermement l'introduction d'une clause d'insularité, un principe horizontal exigeant que chaque grande politique européenne évalue son impact sur les îles. Enfin, une revendication importante sur la gouvernance. Les îles ne peuvent pas se contenter d'être seulement des bénéficiaires de l'aide européenne. Nous ne sommes pas à genoux sous un entonnoir de subventions, nous sommes debout.
C'est aussi ça le message fort de la société civile européenne. Et parce que nous sommes à la fois citoyens et partenaires de l'Europe, nous devons être systématiquement associés à la conception et à la mise en œuvre des politiques européennes pour les îles. Le CESE continuera à jouer pleinement son rôle pour défendre et valoriser les îles et leurs habitants. Nous serons sur le terrain, en Grèce, dans quelques jours, au plus près de la réalité des acteurs locaux, de la société civile, des entrepreneurs et des pouvoirs publics. Vous êtes des parlementaires, vous savez comme nous que pour prendre une bonne décision, il n'y a rien de mieux que le terrain.
Nous savons que nous sommes exigeants, mais nous sommes légitimement exigeants. Et vous pouvez compter sur nous, monsieur le rapporteur, pour organiser toutes les convergences nécessaires au succès de cette nouvelle stratégie insulaire. Je vous remercie.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Now we give the floor to the Commission, Ms. Stahl, you have the floor for three minutes, please.
Kadri Uustal
Thank you very much. Well, there were no questions at this point, so I don't think we we need to have a long intervention. I did pick up the scope of issues that were raised by the honorable members, that it corresponds very much to the scope that we explained and discussed in the strategy that Commission has has adopted. So, certainly when it comes to asking for funding, we look at the next cohesion policy, the NRPPs, as an important source, and the strategy has the role of informing and illuminating also the discussions for the NRPPs in order to secure for the important areas investments in islands.
We also agree that this does have a very strong link also with the forthcoming right to stay strategy. It happens to be also my unit working on that and working on the island strategies and on the issues and reading all the contributions from the call for evidence we saw a very large overlap with islanders dealing with the same issues as other remote and disconnected areas but of course islands have issues on top of that because they're islands. So definitely very relevant to the right to stay and and we're thinking how to how to link also the future work of right to stay so that islands are are benefiting from that. So thank you very much looking forward to the draft report and for the next discussions.
Iglika Yakova
Thanks a lot. First of all big thanks to the rapporteur for putting forward the geopolitical geostrategic aspects of the coastal communities in this this is very very important for us and we would wish to focus also to draw your attention on the recent adoption of the port strategy that also tackles some of those challenges. On the specific needs of data availability we also have on our side the ocean dashboard recently created under the ocean pact with quite some data there on coastal communities. For the in terms of transport accessibility connectivity issues tourism the the offered opinion of the TRAN committee would be very welcome it will be a very important addition to our work very welcome. And then fisheries of course just to to to support your ideas and to remind you that we take fisheries very very seriously and that there is the vision for fisheries 2040 coming and also the preparation of intergenerational renewal strategy that will tackle all those issues important for the blue economy and for the skills of the younger younger generations.
And of course on the new Atlantic strategy full support and looking forward to continue working with you for this new strategy. Thank you.
Ana Miranda Paz
Yes I was invisible but now yes I speak today on behalf of the European Free Alliance our European political party where we have the Island Forum. EFA is the party of the islands with members across many European islands and territories such as the Aland Islands the Friesland the Canary Islands Mallorca Menorca Corsica Sicily and more. Because of their geography unique geography islands face distinct challenges that call out for shared solutions. Through this Island Forum that we want present to Mr. Omarjee our members come together to strengthen the voice of Europe's islands and make sure that their needs are heard across the continent. We are battling also for the recognition of the insularity and also the support of the European funds for the real needs of these territories and we support also the observatory for insularity and in collaboration with our colleague Bosenach we are present some amendments to the report of Mr. Omarjee taking account questions as the right to stay the housing problems the tourism massification problems and the access to water and the protection of nature in these territories.
Thank you very much.
Dragoş Benea
And now I give the floor to the concluding remarks to Mr. Omarjee rapporteur our rapporteur.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup. Si j'en crois le contenu de notre discussion ce matin et des commentaires qui ont été faits, je pense que nous aurons un rapport très complet et un rapport très très riche. C'est un premier échange de vues. Il était très important pour moi d'entendre les uns et les autres pour orienter ma ma proposition. Je veux faire quelques remarques.
Premièrement, c'est une stratégie. Et la stratégie a un objectif, c'est la mise en cohérence de l'ensemble des politiques de l'Union européenne. À partir du moment où la Commission européenne décide d'une stratégie pour les îles, pour les zones maritimes et côtières, cela doit commander l'ensemble des commissaires, y compris la commissaire à la concurrence, pour viser les objectifs qui ont été définis. Et c'est la raison pour laquelle il est extrêmement important que cette dimension transversale soit mise en œuvre par la Commission européenne elle-même. Et nous avons déjà, par exemple, pour les régions ultrapériphériques, plusieurs stratégies.
Et ce que nous disons à chaque fois à la Commission européenne, c'est qu'elle doit être cohérente avec elle-même. Donc toutes les politiques sont appelées à viser les objectifs définis dans la stratégie. Je pense que c'est un point qui est important. Et par ailleurs, que l'ensemble des des instruments, et en particulier des instruments qui sont aujourd'hui en négociation, prennent en compte cette priorité accordée aujourd'hui par la Commission européenne et par le Parlement aux zones côtières, maritimes et aux régions insulaires. La deuxième remarque, c'est d'une certaine manière un très bon alignement des planètes.
Le commissaire Fito a présenté sa stratégie pendant la présidence chypriote et nous aurons le vote de notre rapport pendant la présidence irlandaise. Et j'ai eu l'occasion de le dire à Chypre au ministre irlandais, nous comptons beaucoup sur l'Irlande pour qu'on puisse avancer, pour que l'on puisse préparer les futures négociations budgétaires et les futures négociations qui vont s'ouvrir pour le futur cadre cadre des règlements de de cohésion. Et nous avions demandé, nous, Parlement européen, dans le rapport que nous avions fait adopter lors de la dernière législature, un pacte européen pour les îles, de la même manière que nous avions constaté qu'il y avait eu un pacte d'Amsterdam pour les villes et que ce pacte d'Amsterdam pour les villes avait été fondateur d'une politique urbaine. Et c'est exactement ce que je propose aujourd'hui, à savoir un pacte de Dublin, un pacte de Dublin pour les îles européennes.
Si nous pouvons essayer ensemble d'avancer dans les semaines à venir, je me rendrai prochainement en Irlande pour tendre vers cet objectif avant la fin de la présidence irlandaise, nous aurons accompli un pas extrêmement important. La troisième remarque est sur l'ensemble de vos propositions. Évidemment, elles convergent avec les points que j'avais identifiés concernant évidemment la question de la démographie qui est extrêmement importante. Pouvoir vivre et travailler au pays dans les îles, j'avais été extrêmement frappé en Croatie par cet enjeu démographique qui est absolument vertigineux chez vous et c'est évidemment une question qui se pose dans beaucoup d'îles. Pouvoir garder la jeunesse et pouvoir garder les talents, les questions de pêche, bref, tout ce que vous avez dit concernant les principales priorités, je les reprendrai et je les reprendrai avec vous.
Pour finir sur un point un peu philosophique mais pas seulement, un point de vision géopolitique. Il y a bien sûr la question des surcoûts, c'est évident, la question des difficultés, nous sommes tous d'accord là-dessus et nous devons les compenser et nous devons avoir des moyens nouveaux. C'est évident. Mais nous devons aussi renverser notre approche pour les îles. Je l'ai dit à Chypre, les îles ne sont pas petites.
Les îles dans la nouvelle géopolitique mondiale, dans la nouvelle géographie de la planète, sont immenses et elles sont beaucoup plus immenses que les pays enclavés de l'Union européenne. Et c'est cette nouvelle dimension insulaire qui doit nous-mêmes parfois nous faire changer de regard, je suis insulaire, sur nos îles et qui doit permettre de replacer l'ensemble des îles européennes au cœur même de tous les objectifs prioritaires de l'Union européenne. Et je crois que si nous parvenons à cela, alors nous aurons accompli un pas extrêmement important pour la prise en compte des îles. Voilà, nous sommes dans un travail de construction. S'agissant des régions ultrapériphériques, mon cher collègue, les régions ultrapériphériques ont leur stratégie et elles ont leur instrument dédié au budget.
Et aujourd'hui, il y a une stratégie proposée par la Commission européenne pour les îles et il nous appartient par notre travail de faire en sorte que nous puissions retrouver ensuite dans l'ensemble des règlements et peut-être dans le budget tout ce qui peut venir soutenir ces objectifs que nous partageons. Voilà, je suis à votre disposition pour travailler à ce rapport. Merci beaucoup.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Much very much, we going directly very fast to last point, point number eight, the presentation of the ECA special report 14 by 2026, RRF traceability and transparency gaps remain regarding the traceability and transparency of RRF funds and I would like to welcome Ms. Ivana Maletić, member of the European Court of Auditors and responsible for several reports assessing the RRF implementation. Ms. Maletić, you have the floor for ten minutes.
We must finish in approximately 20 minutes because we don't have translate after this hour. So, thank you, Ms. Maričić.
Ivana Maletić
Honorable Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, I am very happy to present today our report on RRF transparency and traceability. In some of our previous reports, we already tackled this issue, but here we were really focused on: can we trace the money and can we really see in reality, in the practice of different of the member states, in different member states, how RRF money was used and who really received the money? So, these were our main questions. Now let me just, if we can go further, one slide more. Okay.
So, basically, main questions are also now here on the slide: can we see from the systems in the member states where funds are spent, how much is spent, and for what purpose? So, the very important figure in the in the report, if we can go one slide further, is the one showing general flow of RRF funding. So here you can see that we tried to actually trace how money flows from the Commission to the member states through the public bodies to the contractors and other and other private body entities, so SMEs, non-profit organization and so on. And here in this picture you can see that with the with the public sector we can have two different way of contracting private sector entities, like through the public procurement when they are providing goods and services for the public sector, then we have like contractors, and then through the call for proposals when we have different projects and SMEs and non-profit organization implementing different projects and signing contracts with the public bodies authorities for the implementation of the project. So this is what we actually we ended with that to see who are the entities in the private sector.
So regarding traceability, which is first part of our report, we concluded that, I still cannot deal with the, we concluded that traceability exists. So basically member states have accounting systems, so this is no surprise for us, we knew that they record all the transactions in the accounting system, but the problem is how they do that, if we can go one slide further. The problem is how they do that and the fact is that member states in relation to the RRF have completely different systems. So in some cases, here you can see our sample of 10 member states, so this is one of the biggest biggest sample which we had in in any of our audit reports.
Out of 10 member states, four member states can get information on how the money was used and spent just upon request. So they have to collect data on that. It is not automatically collected in the system, even though we all have accounting systems, we are in 21st century with all IT systems and databases developed. But we found that in four cases, it is actually time consuming for the member states to get information. And it was also very time consuming for us.
So in some cases we had to wait more than five months to get information who really benefited from the RRF money. And then in one case, you have in the report box three, in one case member state could not actually provide us with information on who are final beneficiaries of the RRF money. So and this was for us really striking. So traceability exists in terms that accounting systems are there, but when you really want to see and get information, you have in some cases in some member states difficulties. Another main message from the report is related to the actual cost and use of actual cost data.
You all know that we already mentioned in many our reports that actual cost data are important for assessing efficiency, but it's not only about that. It is also about the difference between estimated costs and actual costs. So what we found in our analysis is that out of 19 measures, if we can go one slide further because this you can see here the sample. So out of 19 measures which we analyzed for the four sample member states, 15 had lower actual cost than estimated. So this is not an accident.
15 lower and not higher, lower, even though everybody is talking about inflation and higher costs and so on. But in our sample of 19, 15 had lower actual cost than estimated. And you can see discrepancies. So it is from 7% to 25% lower actual cost than estimated. This is exactly why we said that of course that you need information on actual cost, that you can then manage with the plan.
And you have to decide how to use all all these savings, how to to replace, how to redirect savings from the measures where actual costs are lower to some other activities and actions and results to be achieved. And in the RRF, we don't have systematic approach to this. Nobody is really dealing with this. And at the end, it will be very difficult to conclude was the money really used for the actions which we intended and which were planned based on the on the estimated costs. And last message is related to the transparency, if we can also move further because this one is not moving the slides obviously.
Transparency. So regarding transparency, what we actually found is and you all know that requirements for transparency in the RRF are very, very low. So basically regarding actual cost data and who are beneficiaries of the of the RRF funds, we have only requirements to publish 100 biggest recipients.
Now one can say that transparency is very high because actually you have lot of information related to to milestones and targets, achievement of milestones and targets, progress of implementation related to the milestones and targets, which is one side of the story and it is published, publicly available and transparent. But but when you really want to see how much was invested in green or digital, you don't have actual data nowhere, you cannot find it. And when you look at this list of 100 largest recipients, you mostly see public bodies. And here you can see how this number and percentage of public bodies is more than 80% in most of the member states. So always you see ministries, agencies, railways, water companies, local government units, but we don't see this what I showed on the first figure, contractors, SMEs, non-profit organization, those who are really benefiting from the money.
So and the problem is that then it is very difficult to actually try to see and trace if maybe money is accumulated to certain entities, if somebody is really receiving most of the money or not, are the funds equally distributed, do we have really fair competition related to these funds and so on. So many questions are of course then open because there is lack of information and there is lack of transparency. And of course then based on this, we had different recommendations. One recommendation was related even to the financial regulation because we think that rules in the financial regulation should be stronger and that we cannot put in the financial regulation that certain rules related to transparency and traceability depend on sector specific regulation because then you can always have situation like with RRF, then in this program specific regulation you have nothing, only 100 final biggest recipients. So this should be changed.
And the last one was on the use of actual cost, which I also explained, that somebody has to use it not only because of assessment of the efficiency, but also because of proper management of the funds, that if we have savings, that then we really can see and decide how these savings are used. Thank you very much.
Elena Nevado del Campo
I will speak in Spanish. Muchas gracias por su comparecencia y por estar de nuevo en esta comisión. Yo me he quedado francamente preocupada tras escuchar su exposición porque este informe va de transparencia, del rastreo del dinero de los fondos de recuperación tras cinco años después de la COVID y quién lo ha recibido. Y la conclusión parece que es clara: que ni hay transparencia ni la posibilidad de rastrear adecuadamente el dinero ni siquiera quién ha sido el perceptor de esos fondos. Y usted comprenderá que con la situación que tiene mi país, España, recordemos la cantidad de procedimientos abiertos con un exministro de Transportes en prisión, pues que nos preocupa sobremanera que ustedes hayan llegado a la conclusión de que es imposible que estos fondos de recuperación sepamos dónde han ido cuando el 80% de los beneficiarios además son las administraciones públicas.
Yo tengo dos preguntas claras porque ayer fue 31 de agosto, fecha marcada por los MRR para cumplir los hitos y los objetivos y no sabemos todavía tampoco cuál es el impacto de estos fondos en nuestras economías. Y además es el modelo que ha elegido la Comisión para implementarlo en el nuevo marco financiero y la verdad es que estas lagunas nos dejan realmente preocupados. En España el modelo basado en el rendimiento lo que ha supuesto es que ese dinero vaya al gobierno central, que después se hayan derivado a las regiones tarde, mal o nunca y que esa transferencia encima se haya contado como ejecutada cuando no sabemos siquiera si hay ejecución y por lo tanto tampoco podemos saber si ha llegado a los beneficiarios finales. Entonces a mí me gustaría que pudiera respondernos qué remedios sugiere el Tribunal de Cuentas para evitar estas situaciones en el futuro, máximo como he dicho cuando en el próximo marco financiero la referencia es el los MRR y qué cuestión modificarían ustedes en ese modelo basado en el rendimiento para que no se convierta en un mero ejercicio de marcar una casilla y recibo el pago y después no sé dónde está el dinero. Muchas gracias.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Gracias presidente y gracias señora Maletić. Creo que este informe es una advertencia muy seria para el próximo marco financiero. Los fondos Next se presentaron como un instrumento moderno basado en en resultados pero el tribunal muestra que siguen existiendo lagunas importantes en transparencia, en trazabilidad y en control de los costes reales. Y países como España son un ejemplo especialmente preocupante. El gobierno español tras centralizar la gestión y la ejecución de estos fondos ha conseguido una ejecución nefasta renunciando a 60.000 millones de euros, una falta evidente de previsibilidad modificando por novena vez el plan al cierre de este y una transparencia claramente insuficiente.
Además como indica en su informe se publican los importes anunciados y adjudicados pero no el dinero efectivamente recibido por los beneficiarios, es decir se vende una cifra pero no se sabe cuánto dinero europeo llega a la economía real, a las empresas, a los ciudadanos, a los contratistas y a los proyectos sobre el terreno. Y esto no es un problema técnico. Europa se juega mucho, se juega la confianza de los ciudadanos en el valor añadido de las inversiones europeas y también la credibilidad del presupuesto europeo frente a quienes reclaman un un marco financiero más reducido. Por eso les pregunto: ¿considera el tribunal que la Comisión debería prever medidas correctoras para aquellos estados miembros que no garanticen la suficiente transparencia, la trazabilidad completa de los formos de los fondos y la información sobre los costes reales y los pagos efectivos hasta el nivel de los destinatarios finales y de los contratistas? Gracias.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Oui merci président, merci beaucoup pour cette présentation qui nous est très utile au moment où nous votons le règlement performance et ce matin même en commission REGI. De mémoire la Cour des comptes avait anticipé le règlement performance et apporté beaucoup de critiques. Donc quand on vous écoute sur la traçabilité et sur la transparence manifestement il y a encore du travail à faire. Donc c'est pas à vous forcément que je vais adresser mes questions mais c'est plus à la Commission.
La Commission européenne va retenir de votre rapport, notamment sur deux aspects, vous l'avez dit, comment on va rediriger les économies réalisées parce qu'effectivement entre le coût estimé et le coût réel, il y a une différence. Je pense que les États membres ont besoin de savoir. Et comment la Commission va se comporter par rapport à ceux qui collectent pas forcément très bien les données et qui ne rendent pas finalement les informations qui sont demandées. Est-ce qu'il y a, je ne sais pas, des propositions, des sanctions qui risquent de s'abattre sur ceux qui ne respectent pas les règles que la Commission avait proposées au départ ? Merci.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Sí, buenos días. Muchas gracias por su presentación y yo haría una distinción entre lo que son los resultados políticos de los fondos Next Generation, del plan de recuperación y lo que son las cuestiones que está planteando el informe del Tribunal de Cuentas en cuanto a transparencia y seguimiento de la aplicación de los fondos, porque lo que las dudas que se plantean sobre transparencia lo que no pueden hacer es echar por tierra el indudable éxito de los fondos Next Generation y los fondos de recuperación en toda Europa y especialmente en países que han sido muy receptores de esos fondos como España. Simplemente decirle que España, que ha sido uno de los mayores receptores de fondos Next Generation, abandera ahora el mayor crecimiento de toda Europa con un crecimiento del 2,7 % del PIB en 2025 y con una previsión del 2,4 del PIB en 2026 cuando otras economías europeas están incluso entrando en recesión. Y eso es un indudable éxito de la aplicación por parte del Gobierno de España de los fondos de recuperación. Además, le diré que estamos abanderando el crecimiento en tasas de empleo y de disminución del desempleo en España como nunca se había hecho llegando a casi 23 millones de personas cotizando en la Seguridad Social, una cifra récord que no se había conocido nunca en toda Europa.
Ahora bien, es cierto que ustedes están presentando que hay problemas de seguimiento de los fondos. Esto indudablemente es solo culpa de quien diseñó estos fondos, que fue la Comisión Europea, y lo que más nos preocupa no es lo que haya estado pasando, que sí nos preocupa, lo que nos preocupa es lo que pueda pasar con la aplicación porque la Comisión Europea insiste ahora en que la política de cohesión se disuelva como la conocemos ahora porque ha tenido siempre un seguimiento muy claro con los fondos FEDER, fondo de cohesión e Interreg, y ahora todo se va a disolver en ese gran fondo nacional, planes nacionales y regionales de asociación con una recentralización de fondos y con una opacidad cada vez mayor. ¿Qué mi pregunta es qué recomendaciones nos darían ahora que estamos legislando en el Parlamento, porque si algo tiene de bueno que vengan ustedes al Parlamento es darnos recomendaciones para que en las enmiendas y en el trabajo parlamentario que estamos haciendo con los S&D y PPE incorporemos mecanismos para que se mejore la transparencia y accountability de estos fondos. Muchas gracias.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Now I give the floor to the Commission representative, Ms. Cristina Jordan, Head of Unit DG ECFIN. You have the floor for three minutes and from now we don't have translation, we discuss only in English. So, Ms. Cristina Jordan.
Cristina Jordan
Thank you very much for the floor and for the discussion. So let me briefly indeed explain the Commission's take on this report. Ensuring transparency and traceability is of course a key concern for us and we think that this also shows in the proposal that we have put on the table for the national and regional partnership plans. Now, when it comes to the RRF and the report, the crux of the matter in a way is that we can only act on the basis of what is in the RRF regulation. And this is also why I think we appreciate the recommendations by the Court, but we had to reject them for the reasons that I will briefly explain.
So the first recommendation is about proposing to reopening the financial regulation which was adopted two years ago. And this amended regulation has actually increased a lot the transparency requirements. So all member states will have to collect and publish data on the use of funds for all management modes. And we think that this strikes the right balance between on the one hand transparency, which is very important, but then on the other hand also of course the additional administrative burden that is being imposed on those implementing the Union budget. Now for the future NRPPs, there again we have heard what you were saying and so we have proposed important improvements.
And there member states will need to collect and publish all data on recipients, contractors, subcontractors. They all need to collect this and publish this. So there will be much more transparency compared to the to the RRF and we hope that this goes in the right direction. The second recommendation is about the use of actual cost data. Here again the the RRF regulation is very clear on this.
It does not require member states to report actual cost data to the Commission and it actually explicitly says that apart from when we have specific audits that we as Commission cannot actually make payments subject to actual cost data. So we do not have any legal basis to systematically request this data from the member states. What we are doing is that we verify in the beginning when the member states submit the plans. We see that the estimated costs are reasonable and plausible. Also this happens when the the plans are when they are revised.
And as I said, the auditors of course they can and they do sometimes look at actual cost data. Then when it comes to future financing linked to cost instruments, here okay we accept we rejected the recommendation because on the one hand we think it's a matter of principle that the design of future instruments needs to be decided by the co-legislators. But also on substance in a way a systematic invoice-based control of actual costs would undermine the very simplification objective of financing not linked to costs instrument. Because in a way we would be putting two control systems on top of each other and we think that administratively this would just not be manageable anymore. However, also here and I will close with this, we have introduced important changes in the NRPP proposal.
Because member states there are certain different provisions on this, but one example is that member states will need to show that overall all the payments received under the NRPPs are equal or lower than the actual costs they have declared in the beginning. So there will be additional checks and we hope that this addresses the concerns expressed here by the ECA and also by the members of this house. And needless to say we're counting really also on the support of the MEPs to help make this this proposal into something that we are all happy with and can live with. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Ms. Maletić, I come back to you for for your concluding remarks, please.
Ivana Maletić
Thank you very much. Most of your questions were related actually to the new proposal, of course which is normal because new proposal is based on the RRF. With RRF you said in your intervention that we can say maybe that it is like a big success. And when you really look all over presentations about RRF and what was done in different member states, you can really see like data on different milestones and targets, green and digital transition done, SMEs supported and so on.
The problem is that you can actually, you cannot compare this data with anything and we don't have any baseline. So what was our starting point and where we ended up and how in many and most of the cases. So these baseline indicators, what we actually, what was our start and then what we wanted to achieve and did we really achieve what we wanted or not, this was not clear in the RRF. When you look at the ex-post evaluation, mid-term evaluation, it was stated like RRF is successful because we have, we supported one million SMEs. And it is successful because it is bigger than in cohesion.
But the problem is that, you know, we cannot compare with the cohesion, we are comparing apples and pears and there are no grounds based on which we can really conclude on successfulness of the RRF. So this is our main criticism, that okay, now with RRF as a crisis instrument which was introduced to tackle huge crisis and to help member states to recover from this crisis, we can a little bit like close our eyes. But for the future, like the most, very important traditional policies which are crucial for the European Union, like cohesion and agriculture, this is something what we cannot repeat. We need to have sound ground based on which we will be able to trace and see if we are successful or not. Now this leads me to other questions which you actually asked about performance and performance framework.
So again, with this proposal of the Commission, you have performance regulation, you have indicators, output indicators which are supposed to be final milestones and targets of the measures in the national and regional partnership plans. And when you go through these output indicators and how they are defined, in many cases you don't have a clue what actually we want to do, what we want to achieve, how we will even trace that on an equal foot and consolidate that among member states. So it is not done in a proper way that we can say that now in front of us we have good performance framework based on which we really lead member states and direct member states what they have to do with the European money in the context of the cohesion and agricultural policy. And this is the biggest problem of the performance regulation. Then this results indicators, in many cases they are not even result indicators.
Member states will again connect completely different measures with same intervention fields and then you will just have like reporting for the purpose of the reporting. All administrations in the member states will have to report on indicators, will be driven in their mind by the indicators and how to complete the indicators instead of what do we need for our development. What are the fields in which we have to invest. They will now just think about indicators and how to fulfill indicators which are not set in a proper way. And this is the problem with the performance framework.
So you have to do it always bottom-up and not top-down, you have to start with the needs of the regions, of the member states and then to see how to harmonize that and consolidate at the European level. So we see many, many loopholes which are here in the RRF, which we can as I said close eyes at this moment to that, but we cannot repeat them in the cohesion policy or agricultural policy.
Commission is saying like we cannot talk about actual costs because payments are not linked to the actual costs, but to the fulfillment of milestones and targets. No matter what are your conditions for payment. So you can pay because I dance well and nice and you pay, but it's not about that. The problem is how this money which Member States received, how this money is used. So they can fulfill certain conditions, but then at the end, ex-post, we need information on what was done with the public money, because this is public money, this is not private money where you don't have to answer certain questions.
We have now at this moment more than 500 criminal investigations all over Europe related to the RRF money. So it is more than clear that we have to be transparent, that we have to trace, that we have to force Member States to have systematic traceability, not upon request that I can get information only half a year later or the whole year later or never. So we need this information because this is public money, it should be done in a systematic way. This is why we even call on the changes in the financial regulation, because financial regulation is not clear enough on what are the requirements. And then transparency, of course, that we cannot repeat this 100 biggest recipient.
And you asked also about consequences for the Member States. Unfortunately, I don't see that they will actually suffer any consequences because we decided to have this type of regulation and then in the meantime it was not changed. It was all the time, you know that from the first report, we were asking for the change in the RRF regulation. But it was like taken as set in stone, like something what cannot be changed. And now we have to suffer all the consequences of the badly designed regulation.
And in many cases Member States will not be responsible because regulation was defined at that way from the beginning. But this is exactly why we have to learn lesson and then do it differently with the cohesion and agriculture. We cannot with the traditional policy which are core of the European development and European policies now repeat the same mistakes. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much, Ms. Maletić. Now we will continue with the coordinators' meeting and we will see you at our REGI meeting at half past two with the public hearing on the New European Bauhaus.