Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
REGI European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Dragoş Benea
Adopted. Compromise two, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise three, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise four, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise five, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise six, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise seven, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise eight, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise nine, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise ten, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 201, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Check. But it's necessary to make a testing vote. So we start with test vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Now we're going to amendment 201. The vote is open. The vote is open, amendment 201. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Valentina Palmisano
No, giusto, giusto per capire, perché comunque era stata aperta la votazione non per il test, ma per l'emendamento. Quindi nel momento in cui poi si ripete la votazione, non so perché deve essere ribaltato il risultato.
Valentina Palmisano
Ma non era stato detto che era un testing vote. C'è qualcuno, c'è qualcuno che aveva, insomma, votato.
Speaker 8
Thank you so much, but I don't understand it was a test. Palmisano neither. So, and we were very focused on that.
Dragoş Benea
Amendment 201, it's rejected. 14 against 15. We're going to compromise 11. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 12, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 247, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 13, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 14, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 15, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 16, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 300, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 301, who's in favor? Amendment, sorry, amendment 301, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 302, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 17, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 18, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 19, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 20, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 21, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 22, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 23, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 24, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 25, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 26, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 27, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. We're going to final vote, roll call vote. The vote is open.
No, it's real, real vote. The vote is closed. It's adopted. The next vote will be on the initiative report on cohesion policy in the EU's eastern border regions. During the work on the opinion, 295 amendments have been tabled and 41 compromise amendments have been negotiated between the groups.
I would like to thank Mr. Jacek Protas, the rapporteur, as well as my colleagues shadow rapporteurs for the work done on preparing the compromise amendments and our good cooperation. We're going to the vote. Compromise number 12, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 13, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 14, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 15, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 16, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 17, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 18, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 19, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 20, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 21, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 22, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 23, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 24, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 25, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 26, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 27, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 28, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 29, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 30, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 31, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 32, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 32, 33, sorry. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 34, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 35, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 36, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 37, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 38, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 39, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 38, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 39, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 40, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 41, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 1. Who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 2, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 3, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 4, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 5, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 6, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Compromise 7, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Compromise 8, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 9, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 10, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Compromise 11, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 59, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 197, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 295, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 1, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 2. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Rejected. Amendment 3, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Amendment 4, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted.
Amendment 5, who's in favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 8, who's in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 10, who's in favor? Against?
Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 14, who's in favor? Against? Abstention?
Adopted. Final vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. It's adopted.
Dear colleagues, dear Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto, I would like to warmly welcome you to the REGI Committee for this exchange of view on the communication on the European Union strategies for the outermost regions and for islands, as well as on the 2026 annual progress report. The renewed European strategy for the outermost regions and the EU strategy on islands underscore the Union's commitment to recognizing these territories as strategic components of the EU's global presence. The communication on the new strategic plans for the outermost regions is accompanied by a regulatory package. The package has already been submitted to the Council for adoption after consultation of the European Parliament. Within Parliament, the REGI Committee will be the committee responsible for this file.
In addition, Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto will present the 2026 annual progress report, which covers the period from 1st August 2025 to 31 July 2026. This report outlines the progress achieved towards key policy objectives in the areas of cohesion and reform, with a particular focus on simplification, implementation, and enforcement. It also provides an overview of the main developments and achievements during this period and will form the basis for a detailed discussion with the European Parliament and the Council. Now I would like to give the floor to the Executive Vice-President, Mr. Raffaele Fitto.
Raffaele Fitto
Thank you, Chair. Honorable members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you again. Today we have three important topics on the agenda, including two strategies that this committee has long called for: the EU strategy for islands, the strategy and regulatory package for the outermost regions, and our annual progress on simplification, implementation, and enforcement. These three topics may seem different, but they have something important in common. They are all about making cohesion policy fit for the future, more modern, more responsive, and better able to reflect the realities of our territories.
Let me start with our strategy for EU islands. More than 17 million people live across over 4,000 inhabited islands in the EU, and three of our member states are islands themselves. Islands are an important part of Europe's economy, maritime dimension, environmental diversity, and cultural heritage. They are also places of innovation, entrepreneurship, and strong local identity. But islands communities face specific challenges linked to insularity: distance from mainland markets, dependence on maritime and air connections, higher transport costs, and limited economies of scale.
Insularity is not simply a geographical condition. It has a real economic and social consequences for people simply because of where they live and work. Complex and interconnected challenges cannot be addressed by a single policy or fund. This is precisely why the Commission adopted a dedicated strategy for EU islands. Its purpose is to establish a coordinate framework, guide EU action, and support Member States in designing policies and investment that respond to the realities of islands.
It is built around four pillars. The first pillar covers economic development, connectivity, competitiveness, and innovation. This pillar focuses on the cost of insularity and explores how island-specific challenges can be better addressed in relevant EU frameworks, including state aid. The second covers energy, climate, and environment. The third focuses on people, population decline, ageing, brain drain, and housing.
And the fourth addresses security and crisis preparedness, recognizing the strategic importance of islands from the Baltic to the Mediterranean in Europe's resilience and security. Its value will depend on how well we continue to listen to the islands and translate their needs into concrete action. Let me turn now to the outermost regions. Before going into the details of this proposal, I would first like to express my deepest and most sincere condolences following the passing yesterday of the President of French Guiana, Mr. Gabriel Serville. I would like to express my solidarity to his family, the region, and all its citizens.
On the 10th of September, we presented the new strategy for the outermost regions. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, La Réunion, Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands may be far from continental Europe, but they are crucial to our European project. Their special situation is recognized by the treaties. Article 349 allows the European Union to adapt its rules to their specific realities and constraints. These regions face structural challenges linked to distance, connectivity, small markets, and exposure to external shocks.
But we should not look only at their disadvantages. Their geographical position also creates important opportunities. They are European gateways to other parts of the world. The outermost regions are European gateways to Latin American, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. Their maritime zones represent more than half of the EU's exclusive economic zones.
They are important to our security, maritime surveillance, energy, research, biodiversity, and access to space. The strategy seeks to build on these strengths, turning strategic potential into economic opportunities and better living conditions for people. It has four main objectives: strengthening geostrategic potential and regional integration, improving competitiveness and better access to the single market, reinforcing resilience and preparedness, and ensuring social fairness. Ultimately, our goal is simple: to create the conditions for people to build their future in the place they call home. Because behind every strategy, there are people, and the outermost regions are home to more than five million Europeans.
Achieving this requires us to recognize a fundamental principle: equal treatment does not always mean identical treatment. This is why place-based policy matters. Territories facing very different geographical, economic and social conditions may need different solutions. This is the principle behind Article 349. And we are now translating this principle into concrete action.
For the first time, the strategy comes with a dedicated regulatory package, with targeted adaptations, extensions and derogations on taxation, deforestation rules, agriculture, fisheries and migration. The package is a concrete example of what a place-based European policy means. The objectives remain European, but the way we achieve them must take account of territorial realities. Following its legal basis, the package will be negotiated in the Council, after consulting the European Parliament. I look forward to this committee's opinion and to seeing this proposal through to a successful outcome.
And this approach goes beyond the regulatory package itself. We have already moved in this direction through measures such as the Commission's proposal to extend ETS derogations for maritime and air transport until 2035 and the Public Procurement Act proposal. And we will continue to examine where further adaptations are justified, namely on state aid, maritime transport and fisheries. To ensure that the specific needs of the outermost regions are considered from the outset, we are also establishing a web portal that will give the outermost regions a direct channel to share their views on upcoming EU initiatives. This brings me to one last point on the method.
Both the strategy for islands and the strategy on the regulatory package for the outermost regions have benefited from extensive dialogue with the regions and the Member States concerned. The priorities reflect issues raised by the territories themselves through sustained exchanges with the Commission. This participation matters, because our approach does not end when a strategy is adopted. The dialogue continues before, during and after our proposal, and through this continuous dialogue, we seek to make the right of each European citizen to stay in the place they call home, a reality. I look forward to REGI's work on the reports on the both strategies, which will be an important part of the next stage of this dialogue.
But this approach should not stop, sorry, with these two strategies. This is the approach we are taking throughout our work on the modernization of cohesion policy. We need to speak with those who design policies, those who implement them and those who benefit from them. And we need to verify what we hear on the ground, because Europe is not only single territory. A large metropolitan area, a small island, a rural community, a border region or an outermost region can face completely different challenges.
If we want European policies to work, we need to understand these differences. This is also why I attach great importance to the work of your committee. And today is an important step. Today you have just voted on two important reports, the reports on the eastern border regions and the reports on the EU agenda for cities. I'm looking forward to reading the final text to draw valuable insights from its for our discussions.
Let me turn to the third and final topic: simplification, implementation and enforcement.
Simplification remains one of our top priorities. Cohesion policy must deliver for citizens, with the proper assurance and sound financial management. The 2025 midterm review showed that cohesion policy can respond when circumstances change. By the end of 2025, 25 Member States had submitted 186 programme amendment requests, proposing to redirect 34.6 billion euros, more than 9% of the cohesion policy budget, towards the new priorities. Programmes also need to be easier to deliver.
The midterm evaluation of 2021-2027 programmes shows that current measures are reducing administrative burden for authorities and beneficiaries. These include lighter, more frequent reporting, fewer management verifications, the single audit principle, more proportionate audits, wider use of simplified reimbursement models. We are also seeing progress on the ground. By the end of June 2026, almost 75% of ERDF, JTF, Cohesion Fund and Interreg had been selected for projects, representing close to 290 billion euros in investment across the EU. But we cannot judge whether rules are simple enough from Brussels.
We need to hear from the people who work with them every day. That is why we held two implementation dialogues with stakeholders to see where the burden really lies and what we can do about it. Our objective is clear: less unnecessary burden, so that national, regional, local authorities can focus on delivering results, with support to strengthen their capacity where needed. At the same time, simplification does not mean lowering standards. Member States are primarily responsible for correcting irregular expenditure.
The Commission provides assurance and oversight and uses its tools to protect the EU budget. In short, we are making cohesion policy more flexible to respond to changing needs, simpler for those who implement it, and firm where sound financial management and compliance require it. Honourable members, let me conclude with the broader principle behind all these initiatives. European territories are very different. Their challenges are different.
Their opportunities are different. But the principle behind our work is the same. Cohesion policy must respond to the reality of places and to the needs of the people who live there. Whether we are talking about islands, the outermost regions, or the simplification and implementation of cohesion policy, we need to remain attentive to realities on the ground and make sure that European policy delivers where it matters, for our regions and for our citizens. And our ambition must be clear: to offer Europe's future generations a better place to live, work and build their future.
Thank you very much.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. So I give the floor to the coordinators and we start with EPP who replace Mr. Novakov. We can go to S&D, Mr. Marcos Sempere. Mr. do Nascimento Cabral, okay.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, Chair. Bom, senhor comissário, é um enorme gosto tê-lo aqui connosco. Eu vou esperar um pouco. Okay, I can continue in English. Okay.
Senhor Vice-Presidente, é um enorme gosto tê-lo aqui connosco, especialmente quando nos traz boas notícias. E a apresentação das estratégias que acabou de referir são de facto excelentes notícias, quer para as ilhas, mas permita-me que destaque para as regiões ultraperiféricas. Finalmente a Comissão apresenta uma estratégia que valoriza dois dos aspetos principais. Primeiro, o cumprimento do artigo 349 do Tratado, que obriga toda a política e legislação europeia a ser adaptada a estas regiões. E segundo, reconhece as regiões ultraperiféricas como verdadeiros ativos estratégicos da União Europeia, guardas avançadas, fronteiras da União Europeia, para que também elas possam ter a atenção devida quando falamos também de segurança, defesa, e destaco aqui o Atlântico, a segurança do Atlântico, proteção dos cabos submarinos e a ideia finalmente também de termos uma nova estratégia para o Atlântico com uma macrorregião do Atlântico em que Açores, Madeira e Canárias vão ter um papel fundamental, é de facto de saudar.
Destacaria também aquilo que tem a ver com o ativo geopolítico num mundo em constante instabilidade atual e que a União Europeia muitas vezes faz acordos com países terceiros esquecendo as suas próprias regiões ultraperiféricas e com isso também saúdo mais uma vez este reconhecimento. Obviamente que o procedimento legislativo associado é mais direcionado para uma categoria de regiões ultraperiféricas e a minha primeira pergunta, senhor Vice-Presidente, tem a ver, como também está escrito na estratégia, se há abertura para que nós possamos avançar com novas propostas legislativas também para outras regiões ultraperiféricas. Uma segunda nota também dizer e destacar que para além desse pacote legislativo, a Comissão Europeia já avançou com o prolongamento dos prazos de derrogação do ETS, que vai permitir melhorar a conetividade destas regiões, o que é também de saudar, e que por isso também reforça aquilo que é o nosso pedido de termos um POSEI transportes para as regiões ultraperiféricas para diminuir estas dificuldades. Mas também o CBAM aqui votado também por iniciativa do nosso companheiro Younous Omarjee, em que também conseguimos uma derrogação importante para as regiões ultraperiféricas. E também na lei da contratação pública, que também está lá explícito que nós podemos adequar a nossa especificidade nesta importante legislação.
E permita-me que termine com aquilo que tem a ver também com o reconhecimento de um pacote excecional, quer na estratégia, quer no relatório de progresso anual. É o programa POSEI, que foi reconhecido como um excelente programa e essencial para a produção agrícola destas regiões e de um exemplo daquilo que é uma abordagem direcionada, tailor-made, objetiva para garantir que as pessoas possam ter o direito a ficar, produzir e ter competitividade na sua economia. Senhor Vice-Presidente, estou manifestamente satisfeito, mas mais satisfeito estou porque a reação a esta estratégia das regiões ultraperiféricas foi recebida por quase unanimidade, eu diria unanimidade, por todos os presidentes das regiões ultraperiféricas com enorme satisfação. Agradeço a sua visão. Finalmente temos as regiões ultraperiféricas no centro do debate europeu e a serem valorizadas por aquilo que são: verdadeiros ativos estratégicos da União Europeia que têm o direito a ficar e têm que ser reconhecidos como territórios, eu diria, importantíssimos nesta nova dimensão geoestratégica da União Europeia e do projeto europeu.
Muito obrigado, senhor Vice-Presidente.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Gracias presidente y gracias vicepresidente por venir esta mañana aquí sobre todo por lo que supone de continuidad ir teniendo estos diálogos estructurados que nos permiten ir conociendo de primera mano las intenciones de la Comisión Europea, las comunicaciones antes de que se lancen muchas veces ya tenemos información y después de que se lancen poder debatirlas hoy aquí. Hoy nos viene a venimos a debatir sobre dos comunicaciones que para esta comisión son muy importantes, dos estrategias: la estrategia para las regiones ultraperiféricas y la estrategia para las islas de la Unión Europea. Creo que desde esta comisión es innegable que el apoyo que todos los grupos realizamos a para que estas regiones sigan teniendo y contando con el apoyo y la financiación de los fondos europeos y del soporte técnico y de apoyo a estas regiones para seguir desarrollándose y para que puedan estar al mismo nivel a pesar de sus dificultades, sus dificultades de lejanía geográfica, de comunicaciones y de todo tipo. Yo no me voy a parar mucho en estas dos comunicaciones porque en la siguiente ronda de intervención pues tendrá oportunidad de hablar mi colega Sergio Gonçalves que va a ser el el rapporteur del Parlamento para la comunicación de de regiones ultraperiféricas y mi colega Nora Mebarek que va a ser nuestra ponente del grupo socialista para la comunicación de islas. Pero sí me quiero parar en un aspecto que tiene que ver un poco con el plan de trabajo o con lo que se está haciendo en 2026 y con una petición que la Comisión Europea ha realizado a todos los Estados miembros que a mi entender y a mi juicio se adelanta a lo que tiene que legislar este Parlamento y es los planes nacionales.
Sabemos que hay por petición de la Comisión Europea muchísimos Estados miembros que están trabajando ya en diseñar un plan nacional. Pero los planes nacionales están ahora en discusión en este Parlamento, están muy contestados en este Parlamento, tenemos muchas divergencias con lo que había planteado la Comisión y probablemente la propuesta que salga de este Parlamento sea muy distinta a la que la Comisión Europea hizo el año pasado y lanzó en sus comunicaciones en sus reglamentos y por lo tanto hasta que entendemos que hasta que no se cierre la fase de negociación lo que está haciendo la Comisión pidiéndole a los Estados miembros que diseñen sus planes nacionales es una política de hechos consumados y de pedir que adelanten unas situaciones que probablemente luego tengan que rehacer porque yo creo que la posición de esta comisión y de este Parlamento es muy fuerte en contra de esa recentralización que se propone y los Estados miembros ahora están diseñando en función de lo que ustedes les han dicho. Así que me gustaría saber un poco su opinión sobre este esta petición de trabajo y este trabajo adelantado que están haciendo los Estados miembros que a mi entender creo que va a quedar en papel mojado porque lo que salga de las negociaciones no va a ser realmente lo que se les ha pedido ahora. Muchas gracias.
André Rougé
Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif, heureux de vous accueillir ici et d'accueillir avec vous les bonnes nouvelles que vous nous apportez. Vous démontrez qu'un commissaire européen peut aborder les réalités des territoires européens les plus excentrés et qu'il le peut lorsqu'il sort des réflexes technocratiques de cette institution et qu'il agit avec pragmatisme. Les besoins de nos régions ultrapériphériques sont nombreux. Vous les avez appréciés depuis deux ans, vous nous avez écoutés et vous avez entendu les remontées du terrain effectivement, notamment après le drame du cyclone Shido à Mayotte où vous vous êtes rendu pour comprendre la situation et pour accélérer le déblocage des fonds européens de la reconstruction.
Vous vous êtes penché sur le dossier complexe de l'adaptation des normes européennes aux spécificités de nos régions ultrapériphériques et à cet égard nos analyses convergent quant au bien-fondé des propositions de la vision stratégique pour les RUP. Le document présenté le 10 septembre dernier contient des avancées absolument indéniables. Cependant, il reste quelques efforts à accomplir. Nous souhaitons notamment que l'idée d'une étude d'impact RUP soit adoptée. Elle serait obligatoire avant la finalisation de toute proposition législative ou réglementaire.
Il en irait de même pour la clause d'adaptation RUP par défaut à intégrer à chaque texte lorsque l'étude d'impact en démontre la nécessité. Nous pensons également que de nouvelles adaptations sectorielles en matière de normes sont absolument indispensables, notamment dans les secteurs du BTP et du tourisme. Ces deux secteurs sont moteurs pour la croissance et l'activité économique des territoires ultramarins, or ils souffrent profondément de l'inadaptation de normes nationales bien souvent la conséquence de la transposition de normes européennes pensées pour le continent. Les élus des patriotes pour l'Europe et particulièrement des RUP ici présents espèrent vivement qu'une prochaine étape intégrera rapidement ces dispositions. Les défis restent immenses pour nos outremers qui sont aussi nos avant-postes aux quatre coins du monde.
L'insécurité, la vie chère, les inquiétudes sur l'octroi de mer, le défi migratoire, l'inadaptation générale des normes et la mise à niveau des infrastructures constituent pour nos compatriotes, les collectivités et les forces vives un véritable mur. Et ce mur, Monsieur le Vice-Président, c'est ensemble que nous devons l'abattre. Vous pouvez compter sur notre vigilance constructive pour nous faire auprès de vous les avocats de nos concitoyens ultramarins et pour que soit poursuivi au long de cette législature l'effort qui vient d'être engagé.
Francesco Ventola
Grazie Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie Vicepresidente Fitto per la sua consueta e costante presenza in questa commissione che rende plastica la necessità e la volontà di voler dialogare e confrontarsi quotidianamente sul lavoro che si sta svolgendo. Le due relazioni oggi messe alla nostra attenzione, sia quella delle isole e delle ultraperiferiche, se a queste ci aggiungiamo anche la strategia del diritto a restare, beh abbiamo chiara la sensazione di come finalmente si vuol rendere sempre più coeso non solo il nostro continente ma rafforzare la volontà che il cittadino del nostro continente si senta sempre più un cittadino europeo. Evidentemente chi vive in queste regioni ha una situazione diversa ma che molto spesso è ignota a coloro che invece vivono nelle nazioni che tutti noi conosciamo. Questo in questo momento storico lo riteniamo molto importante per cui credo che da questa commissione non può che venire un forte sostegno affinché si continui su questo lavoro ringraziandola per l'ascolto anche andando proprio sui territori a verificare come sono le cose.
A questo aggiungo alcune riflessioni sul quale magari qualche piccola domanda. Benissimo ancora di più il concetto di semplificazione al quale aggiungerei quello della flessibilità un po' così come si sta facendo per tutta la politica di coesione. Perché le dinamiche mutano di giorno in giorno nel nostro continente e non solo, e quindi avere strumenti che consentono poi agli Stati membri o alle diverse autorità di gestione di poter utilizzare al meglio le risorse nel momento in cui si verificano determinate necessità credo che sia un passo in avanti e una volontà politica che debba essere supportata. Concludo, notiamo anche in questo in questi rapporti la ferma volontà di avere una governance multilivello. Ecco noi confidiamo che questo continui e che ci sia continui ad esserci questa forma forte volontà di non centralizzare la tutta la politica di coesione ma che rimanga una governance multilivello che tiene presente delle diverse peculiarità locali.
Grazie.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and good to see you, Executive Vice-President Fritor again. As Renew's shadow rapporteur on the report on the EU islands and coastal regions, I welcome the Commission's first-ever dedicated strategy as a long-overdue recognition that island life creates challenges for their inhabitants. Now you know, Commissioner, these challenges must be addressed through changes to EU regulations and funding opportunities, not just in policy papers and pilot projects. Islands and coastal communities have great potential which must be supported within our cohesion framework. Coming from an island nation like myself, these challenges are well known to me.
They show up in every ferry crossing, every air connection, and in access to services. However, I feel we must address the elephant in the room, Commissioner. We've been speaking at length about the fact we must give our citizens the so-called right to stay. But so far, the Commission has not announced any dedicated new funding for this area, for a right to stay strategy. It's expected to rely on existing instruments, you say, while our regions are crying out for clearer financial commitments in the next MFF.
So a proposal with no dedicated funding and no binding instruments is not a credible way to tell our citizens they have a right to stay. This is particularly problematic for our islands in my constituency who face permanent natural and demographic challenges. I'm talking about islands like the Aran Islands, Achill Island, Clare Island, Inishturk, Inishbofin, and Tory Island. On all of these places, young people leave because there are no reliable transport links and no guarantee that essential services will in fact remain. Energy bills are higher there, construction costs are higher, the cost of delivering public services are higher again.
So if the right to stay is to mean anything, Commissioner, for the islands, I think it must be backed up by three things. Firstly, predictable, ring-fenced funding. The next programming period must ensure that islands are explicitly prioritized in the new national and regional partnership plans. I want you to tell me today if that's going to happen, if it's going to be checked by the Commission on an annual basis. Are you going to look at those NRPPs when they come in?
Are you going to put a system in place where we can check every year if there's a follow-through for the island communities? Second, will it have legal teeth? We need targeted changes in EU legislation, Commissioner, to reflect the ongoing challenges faced by our islands. And thirdly, as I say, we need measurable outcomes. The annual progress report on the islands must really track real indicators, and these are population trends.
Executive Vice-President, I say to you the political will is there. I think you have an interest in this. You came to my constituency in Dublin, you met these islanders and you spoke to them with great passion for this file and the right to stay. But we have to ensure it's funded and tailored to the realities of the situation. And you know I'm talking about the people are listening today in the island communities to you this morning looking for the for the answer to this question: will there be a definitive line?
Are they going up or going down? Housing affordability, are we building more or less? Connectivity, these are the real issues that must be tested.
People like Sinead Catalan, the island manager on the island of Inish Turk, and Joanne Carl on Clare Island. They're listening to see what is the fund that will support them with real and tangible benefits. Thank you.
Mārtiņš Staķis
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Executive Vice-President, for being here and thank you for mentioning those two important reports we voted today and one of them is from the Eastern Border Regions. And for me, the most important point in it is the horizontal approach. So right now, a consortium from the Eastern Border Regions applies for EU funding like anyone else. It competes with projects from regions with no war next door, no closed borders and no investors pulling out. And this is not a level playing field.
So the report asks for these regions to be a priority across all EU instruments for 2028 and 2034 with dedicated and ring-fenced resources on top of national envelopes. In practice, that means a project from the Eastern Border Region should get additional support or some advantage when it applies. So do you support this horizontal approach and will you push for it with your colleagues in the College so it does not stop at just cohesion policy? Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We continue with Mr. Vice-President of European Parliament, Mr. Younous Omarjee, from the Left.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. À mon tour de rendre hommage ce matin à Gabriel Serville, président de la collectivité territoriale de Guyane, disparu à 67 ans. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Commissaire, de lui avoir rendu hommage en début de cette réunion. Nous l'avons beaucoup fréquenté dans les conférences des présidents des régions ultrapériphériques. C'était un président engagé, engagé pour l'Europe, engagé pour son pays, la Guyane, et qui était très, très engagé pour la reconnaissance des spécificités des régions ultrapériphériques, de la bonne mise en œuvre de son article 349, et nous en parlons, nous en parlons ce matin.
Je voudrais dire aux membres de notre commission que le Parlement européen a apporté sa contribution importante pour l'émergence de ces stratégies et en particulier pour la stratégie pour les îles, tout le monde le sait. La commission du développement régional l'a réclamée lors de la dernière législature et je remercie le commissaire Fitto d'avoir tenu son engagement et d'avoir avancé aussi vite vers la mise en œuvre, la présentation de cette stratégie pour les îles. C'était très attendu par l'ensemble des îles européennes, en particulier en Méditerranée. C'est une rupture qui est aujourd'hui opérée par par la Commission. Je serai le rapporteur pour notre commission pour cette stratégie pour les îles et comme j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de le dire, elle sera articulée autour des deux dimensions que vous avez soulignées : à la fois la dimension géopolitique que nous ne pouvons plus ignorer concernant l'apport des îles européennes à l'Europe et puis évidemment essayer d'avancer vers la prise en compte des particularités dans les différentes politiques sectorielles.
Et qu'il s'agisse de la stratégie pour les RUP que la stratégie pour les îles, en réalité elles appellent à beaucoup de cohérence dans les politiques sectorielles de l'Union. Et d'ores et déjà, sans même attendre le dépôt de ces stratégies par la Commission européenne, devrait être une bonne indication pour l'ensemble des commissaires sur ce qu'ils ont à inscrire dans les différents règlements. Et une bonne indication également, comme je l'ai déjà dit, pour Madame Teresa Ribera, commissaire à la concurrence dans l'approche des aides d'État. Je vais m'attarder un moment à présent, si vous me le permettez Monsieur le Président, concernant la stratégie pour les RUP. C'est une nouvelle méthode que vous avez présentée puisque la stratégie est accompagnée d'un paquet législatif.
Très bien accueilli partout, mais que nous allons sans doute, comme l'a demandé mon collègue Paulo do Nascimento Cabral ainsi que mon collègue Gonçalo Velho lorsque nous étions à Madère, qui puisse être à présent consolidé, renforcé pour toujours avancer un peu plus pour la reconnaissance, la mise en œuvre de l'article 349. La deuxième remarque que je veux faire, c'est concernant le NRPP. Vous avez intégré dans votre proposition dès le départ un filet de sécurité pour les régions les moins développées. Nous le soutenons, mais nous déposons, en tout cas je déposerai devant cette commission un filet de sécurité supplémentaire pour les régions ultrapériphériques. Et je pense que c'est là un verrou qui nous permettra de garantir que les fonds dans les régions ultrapériphériques ne soient pas diminués dans la prochaine programmation.
Et puis le troisième point qui concerne évidemment à la fois les régions ultrapériphériques comme les régions insulaires et les régions maritimes, c'est que nous puissions avoir des moyens aussi dans d'autres politiques que la politique de cohésion, dans d'autres instruments pour soutenir les objectifs en matière de sécurité, en matière de défense, en matière de compétitivité dans les régions ultrapériphériques et dans les îles, pour les investissements dans les ports, pour les investissements dans les câbles sous-marins, pour des investissements dans de très grandes infrastructures qui sont nécessaires pour les îles et les RUP, mais qui sont nécessaires également pour l'ensemble de l'Union européenne puisque ce sont là des frontières extérieures de l'Union. Dernier point, et je m'arrêterai là, on était à Madère. Et quand je suis arrivé à Madère, j'ai regardé la population de Madère. Madère aujourd'hui c'est 266 000 habitants. La population à Madère en 2100, ça sera 150 000 habitants.
Et les hypothèses basses, c'est 92 000 habitants. Et si vous regardez le Portugal, le Portugal, c'est à peu près 10 millions d'habitants. En 2100, le Portugal, ça sera 4 millions, un peu plus de 4 millions d'habitants. Bon, c'est une tragédie. C'est une tragédie pour l'Europe et c'est une tragédie pour les îles.
Donc cet objectif de permettre aux insulaires évidemment de partir, lorsqu'on est dans une île, on regarde le monde, on veut se projeter ailleurs, il faut aider les jeunes à partir. C'est formidable. Mais nous devons aussi redonner une modernité à ce slogan de l'époque du droit à rester et travailler dans son pays. Et c'est cet espoir que nous portons à travers l'ensemble des propositions que nous faisons et qui doivent concrètement toucher la jeunesse de ces territoires, aussi bien dans les îles que dans les régions ultrapériphériques qui toutes sont des îles à part la Guyane. Merci beaucoup.
Irmhild Boßdorf
Ja, vielen Dank für das Wort. Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar, dass Sie sich auch die Zeit genommen haben, sich heute hier unseren Fragen zu stellen. Es ist schon fast alles von allen gesagt worden. Ich würde gerne noch mal das Augenmerk legen auf die schrumpfende Bevölkerung. Herr Omarjee hat gerade drauf hingewiesen.
Kann es da irgendwelche Konzepte gegen gegen zu steuern und inwieweit kann vielleicht eine geopolitische Strategie helfen, diesen Outermost Regions diese weiter zu stärken? Danke.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Now I give the floor to Mr. Executive Vice-President for your replies and comments.
Raffaele Fitto
Yes, thank you. Thank you for your contributions. I would like to start from one general point because the work that we are doing on the different strategies like the strategy for islands and for the outermost regions, but also the strategy for the eastern border regions and the EU agenda for the cities go in the direction to create the tools for the next national regional partnership plan for the next MFF to give the tools to face these different challenges that we have. And to mention one point that Mr. Omarjee, but not only he, but also the last question and the other colleagues mentioned, we are working for the very important comprehensive strategy, the strategy for the right to stay, to face this big challenge that we have in front of us. And to prepare this strategy, we are working also in particular going in the territories, speaking with the people, speaking with the local authorities, speaking with the representative of the regions, the cities, because it is very important also to face these different challenges that we have, these different specificities, because outermost is different than the islands in general, is different than the internal areas, different than rural areas, the sparsely populated areas or the eastern border regions.
The effort that we are doing goes in this direction to prepare these very important tools with a general approach to use in the next MFF. And to go in the middle of the issues, I would like to start from the point about the next MFF and the next national regional partnership plan. It is true, we don't know which will be the outcome of the negotiation of the NRRP, but we cannot waste time. While the negotiation are not concluded yet, it is important that Member States start preparing already their plans, since draft plans should ideally be ready in 2027.
This would ensure that EU funding reaches beneficiaries without interruption in January 2028. This is a very important point because we are in the end, in the final phase of the RRF and we are in the middle of the cohesion policy program 21-27. It would be very important to be ready the 1st January of 2028 with the next MFF. Yes, we have to wait the negotiation with the Parliament, with the Council, but now we are trying to go in the right direction with Member States to understand the new priorities that we have. Following also, and I use this point to answer to the point about the flexibility that mentioned some of you.
We have a very good example that I mentioned in my introduction speech, the mid-term review of cohesion policy was an important exercise because we show how is important the role of cohesion policy, but adapting this policy to the new priorities that we have. But the decision of the new priorities, the five priorities as you know, defense, water, housing, energy and competitiveness, was a decision that we took together because we decided among the Member States, the regions, the Committee of Regions, the European Parliament. And also the method, I would like to underline, because the method that we use goes in the right direction because we gave a voluntary basis to decide. And this is another important point. But we have to continue this work and about the outermost regions, I can say that Article 349 will not be an exemption, but will make use of in the future to take into account the specificities of the territories.
This is very important and it is very important also the fact that we have to continue our work also about POSEI because POSEI is not now inside the next MFF as name, but as you know, we have a clear commitment to keep this point. Also in particular to emphasize some important points that we debated also in this committee before in other occasion, like for example the categories of regions and in particular also the pre-allocation of 218 billion to the less developed regions. This is another important message that can confirm this point. But the work that the European Commission now are starting to do is to understand also the perspective together with the Member States, also to understand how is possible to keep this policy, to give the right message in this way. And it is important also the method that you mentioned and Mr. Omarjee underlined the fact that this work started, have started some years ago.
For me it is a great pleasure to be here today as Vice-President of the European Commission to confirm that the work that together in this committee when I was member of this committee we started to do, now is a strategy of the European Commission and have for the first time also a legislative package.
This is very important and this package it will be important to continue to implement because as you know and as I said before we are working also in the other legislation to create the condition also to put some specific point for the outermost regions. This is a clear message that I can say about ETS legislation but also public procurement to to do some two very important example. Mr. Mulloli mentioned the the role of the islands. As you know we met each other in in Dublin. We had a very positive meeting during the Irish presidency.
We had the opportunity to enter in the details of the work that under the Cyprus presidency we concluded with this strategy. The strategy for island is another important step. As I said during my introduction speech we have thousand islands inhabited and this is very important to understand that we have to to do the clear answer. We have three member states like Ireland and we have to continue in this way. The point about the right to stay that some of you mentioned it is fundamental because it is the opportunity also to strength the capacity of the European Union to be present on the territories but on the territories but also an opportunity to strength our method.
I can say that we are working to present this strategy in in the next months probably in the end of January. We will see but the method also in this strategy it will be very important because as I said we are going in the member states. We are discussed of debated of this point in two different directions. One is the the right to stay to face this very important challenge that we have in several in several part of Europe but also to strength the the work that we are doing to have a Europe more competitive because it is impossible to have a Europe more competitive without the role the presence of the all territories. And in this way cohesion it will be fundamental because cohesion policy is the policy as you know that we have to to reduce the disparities among the territories and we have to continue in this direction because it will be fundamental also the fact that we have to understand how is possible to have this integrated approach.
All these strategies and all these point that you mention is also a part of the organization of the European Commission. I would like to underline another important point. As you know I have I have the responsibility of cohesion policy but under the executive vice presidents I have also the coordination of other three commissioners: agriculture, tourism and transport, fisheries and blue economy. If we speak about outermost regions, islands or the other specificities of the the the cohesion policy in general and the the situation that we have in Europe to face this very important challenge of demographic decline. This is crucial in our work.
We have to go in the direction to have this integrated approach. And Mr. Roger mentioned also before the point about the method. I think that is fundamental.
We will have in November, for example, the conference of the outermost regions, and it will be another important occasion to verify directly, speaking with the president of regions, the representative of the European Parliament, the Committee of Regions, and the stakeholders, how is possible to implement this strategy. But is the same method that we are using in general for the other strategies, for the other solutions that we want to achieve, the results that we want to achieve. And we have to continue in this way because the strategies are not the final point, but is the first point for the future. Our proposal, our idea, our work have to be to create the very constructive position to implement this strategy in the next steps. And the crucial challenge that we have is in the next design of the next national regional partnership plans to understand how is possible to keep but also to relaunch this strategy.
Because to stay and to conclude, but to mention these two last point, the last point is very important, the new role that we have in this new geopolitical context that we have. Because the outermost region is not only the islands very far from Europe. No, is a great opportunity for the future challenges of Europe. Speaking for defense, for space, it is fundamental to have an important vision and also to create the solutions to give to these islands this very important role. This is the way that we can use also to implement our strategies, but not to have a national approach in these islands, because the nine outermost regions and in general the islands in Europe can be an important opportunity also for the future that we have in front of us.
And this is my commitment and I'm sure that it will be very important to continue our work and to confirm the method that we are using among us in the next steps. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
We continue now with two minutes interventions under the catch-the-eye procedure, and we start with Mrs. Vice-President Nora Mebarek from S&D.
Nora Mebarek
Merci Monsieur le Président. Merci Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif d'être là ce matin pour échanger avec nous. Je vous avoue que j'avais une intervention très préparée qui reprenait l'engouement de mes collègues qui sont intervenus avant moi sur la méthode, et je voulais saluer cette nouvelle méthode, mais c'était sans avoir attendu votre propos à l'instant, et notamment sur le NRPP et sur le MFF. Sur le CFP, le changement de méthode n'a pas lieu avec notre commission. Vous l'avez dit Monsieur le Président, vous avez été membre de cette commission, et le fait que la commission négocie directement avec les États membres nous met dans un niveau de désespoir sur ce à quoi sert le Parlement.
C'est vraiment rouler sur les droits fondamentaux du Parlement et de cette commission à amender les textes et à pouvoir proposer dans le cadre des NRPP une concertation et surtout partir du local après la conférence qu'on a eue mardi sous la houlette de Monsieur Omarjee et Monsieur Benea avec les 144 régions qui n'attendaient pas que on puisse aujourd'hui ne pas intervenir sur le fait qu'on a l'impression, qu'on a le sentiment et qu'on en a la confirmation que la commission souhaite recentraliser les NRPP, qui est donc à l'encontre de ce que cette commission a travaillé et travaille, et notamment sur la partie des RUP.
Donc voilà, je voulais juste le souligner parce que j'avais une introduction très enjouée et j'avoue que je reste inquiet sur le fait que vous puissiez assumer qu'il faut commencer à travailler avec les États membres avant que nous ayons eu le temps, nous le Parlement, d'être dans notre rôle et amender le texte et notamment le CFP. Donc je vais être très, comment dire, finalement très concise puisque nous aurons un débat jeudi prochain en plénière sur la stratégie sur les îles et donc à ce moment-là, je pense qu'on aura le temps d'aller vers le fond. Mais je vous poserai certainement une seule question : est-ce que jeudi prochain, dans le cadre de ce débat, vous arriverez avec des engagements un peu plus clairs, notamment sur la stratégie des îles qui ne peut pas être qu'une déclaration d'intention, mais bien comme l'ont rappelé l'ensemble de mes collègues, une stratégie qui reprenne l'ensemble des éléments de politique sectorielle et comment, là pour le coup, vous allez changer la méthode du collège pour que les îles deviennent aussi prioritaires sur la partie de cette stratégie qui pour l'instant n'est qu'une déclaration d'intention et n'est pas assez à mon avis, assez claire pour que on puisse essayer d'avoir un débat sur la question. Donc voilà, je vous avoue que bon, voilà, je vais repartir parce que ça m'a fait de la peine que de vous entendre vous expliquer que vous avez des négociations normales et directes avec les États membres quand nous on essaie de travailler au quotidien et d'essayer d'amender. Et d'ailleurs sur le MACF vous l'avez vu, si le Parlement n'avait pas pris ce mandat de négociation, on n'aurait eu une taxe au carbone, c'est pareil sur l'histoire de TS2.
Donc laissez-nous faire notre travail, essayez de porter la régionalisation, ne faites pas comme s'il était normal que cette Commission fasse pas son travail et qu'elle n'ait pas la possibilité d'amender et qu'elle ait un contact direct avec les régions, les RUP, les îles, l'ensemble des régions au niveau européen, c'est la même chose. Le changement de méthode est demandé, j'espère que vous arriverez jeudi prochain à me rassurer ou à nous rassurer et en tout cas rassurer les régions.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Now we continue with Ms. Maria Walsh from EPP. It's online.
Maria Walsh
Thank you very much. It's very welcome to finally have a strategy that puts islands and our coastal communities at the center of these conversations. Executive Vice-President, you've heard from many, particularly from Irish colleagues, but coming from the west of Ireland myself, I know that life on the island can be quite different from life on mainland. I think that has been heard loud and clear today. And that insularity is not an abstract concept, but it affects people's everyday lives.
The strategy rightly talks about the cost of insularity, but Ireland's GDP per head is well above the EU average. And there is where for me, and no doubt many colleagues here, national figures can at times hide what is really happening on the ground for constituents. On islands like Inishbofin, Inishmaan, Clare Island, the list is endless. The cost of being remote can mean a ferry that cannot run in winter storms, difficulty accessing healthcare, housing restrictions set by EU and national building laws and guidelines, or young people leaving simply because they don't see a future for themselves where they grew up. So we need to make sure that cohesion policy looks beyond national averages and reflects the realities of these communities.
So my question to you is, can you confirm that the granular data collected under this strategy will properly capture our smallest and most remote islands when deciding where support is needed, so it's been targeted and given to the communities that need it the most? Because for these communities, connectivity is simply not a luxury.
Rody Tolassy
Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie pour cette cette possibilité de me permettre de prendre la parole. Monsieur le Vice-Président, merci beaucoup, merci pour cette stratégie, merci aussi pour ce paquet législatif qui va nous permettre de revoir les réglementations qui sont souvent imposées à nous, ce que je rappelle que moi-même je suis originaire d'une de ces régions ultrapériphériques, j'y vis au quotidien et je vois les difficultés de la mise en œuvre de la politique européenne pensée à des milliers de kilomètres et qui ne sont pas effectivement adaptées à nos territoires. J'aimerais quand même et j'ai vu dans certains dans le texte dans sous certaines rubriques qu'il y a une prise en considération des difficultés que nous rencontrons sur ces territoires. Je veux parler par exemple sur la résilience et l'adaptation au changement climatique. Il y a, j'ai vu, la considération sur le ramassage et le traitement des algues sargasses.
Je vais pas revenir un peu sur les pourquoi nous avons ces algues aujourd'hui, je vais pas revenir aussi sur les traités de libre-échange que nous avons que la Commission a signé avec les Amériques les pays d'Amérique du Sud qui vont augmenter significativement ces échouages d'algues sargasses, mais ce que je dis c'est qu'il faut de vrais véritables programmes opérationnels pour traiter ces sujets. J'ai vu aussi que sur la question de l'équité sociale, la question de l'eau est prise en compte, mais il faut aussi un véritable programme opérationnel. On ne peut pas parler de rattrapage du niveau de vie, de conditions de développement économique lorsque vous savez pertinemment à l'heure où je parle dans mon territoire en Guadeloupe, un tiers de la population lorsqu'ils ouvrent le robinet, ils n'ont pas accès à l'eau. Et moi-même en tant que député, ça m'arrive d'ouvrir le robinet chez moi et de ne pas avoir accès à l'eau. Donc nous ne pouvons pas nier ces difficultés.
Je crois que c'est le rôle de l'Europe lorsque l'État n'arrive plus à répondre à ces problématiques, qu'elles soient sur les algues sargasses ou l'eau, que l'Europe sur le principe de subsidiarité puisse y répondre. J'aimerais aussi avoir une objection. C'est sur la fameuse prolongation de l'octroi de mer, du dispositif d'octroi de mer pour trois ans. Je suis en totale opposition à cela parce que nos compatriotes des régions ultrapériphériques, notamment et surtout françaises, payent déjà le coût de l'insularité, payent déjà le coût de la vie chère. Et donc ces difficultés sont aussi s'ajoutent à ces difficultés la question de l'octroi de mer.
Donc il faut une révision, une vraie révision, une vraie réforme de l'octroi de mer. Et donc j'espère que vous allez entendre la voix du Parlement sur ce sujet sur ce sujet-là et ne pas rester dans le statu quo. Merci.
Elena Kountoura
Ευχαριστώ πολύ κύριε Πρόεδρε. Κύριε Εκτελεστικέ Αντιπρόεδρε, κύριε Φίτο, δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι η πρώτη ευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική για τα νησιά αποτελεί ένα πολύ σημαντικό θετικό βήμα. Η επιτυχία της όμως θα κριθεί από το αν έχει δεσμευτικό περιεχόμενο και επαρκή χρηματοδότηση. Το μόνιμο πρόσθετο κόστος της νησιωτικότητας απαιτεί μόνιμες λύσεις.
Επίσης χρειαζόμαστε δεσμευτική ρήτρα νησιωτικότητας, θέσπιση αντισταθμιστικών εργαλείων, ειδική χρηματοδότηση και πιο δίκαιη αντιμετώπιση όλων των νησιών καθώς αποτελούν περιοχές στρατηγικής σημασίας για την ευρωπαϊκή ανταγωνιστικότητα, ασφάλεια, ανθεκτικότητα και συνοχή. Χρειαζόμαστε μόνιμες πολιτικές που σχεδιάζονται με γνώμονα πραγματικές ανάγκες των κοινωνιών, όπως το ελληνικό μεταφορικό ισοδύναμο που πολύ πετυχημένα αντιμετωπίζει το αυξημένο κόστος μεταφορών για τους κατοίκους και τις επιχειρήσεις των νησιών και μην ξεχνάτε ότι η Ελλάδα έχει πάνω από 200 νησιά με μόνιμους κατοίκους. Η στρατηγική αν και αναγνωρίζει πολλές από τις προκλήσεις που αντιμετωπίζουν οι νησιωτικές περιοχές, δεν συνοδεύεται από σαφή δεσμευτικά μέτρα και διακριτό χρηματοδοτικό πλαίσιο. Πιστεύω επομένως ότι η στρατηγική θα πρέπει να εξελιχθεί σε ένα ευρωπαϊκό σύμφωνο για τα νησιά το οποίο θα συνοδεύεται από πολυετές σχέδιο δράσης με χρονοδιάγραμμα, επαρκή χρηματοδότηση, μετρήσιμους στόχους και δείκτες παρακολούθησης. Θα ήθελα λοιπόν να σας ρωτήσω πώς σκοπεύετε να μετατρέψετε τη ρήτρα νησιωτικότητας από γενική κατεύθυνση σε ουσιαστικό ευρωπαϊκό εργαλείο ώστε οι ιδιαιτερότητες των νησιών να συνυπολογίζονται συστηματικά στο σχεδιασμό και υλοποίηση των ευρωπαϊκών πολιτικών;
Θα στηρίξετε τις υποχρεωτικές εκτιμήσεις εδαφικών επιπτώσεων για κάθε νέα νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία με σημαντικό νησιωτικό αποτύπωμα; Θα στηρίξετε την υποχρεωτική ενσωμάτωση ειδικού κεφαλαίου για τα νησιά στα μελλοντικά εθνικά και περιφερειακά σχέδια εταιρικής σχέσης με διακριτές προτεραιότητες, στόχους, δεσμευτικούς πόρους ώστε η πρόσβαση των νησιών σε ειδικά εργαλεία να μην εξαρτάται αποκλειστικά από την κατηγορία του ΑΕΠ της κάθε περιφέρειας; Και τέλος, θα στηρίξετε την υιοθέτηση ενός ευρωπαϊκού συμφώνου για τα νησιά με σαφές σχέδιο δράσης, σαφές πλαίσιο συνεργασίας και πολυεπίπεδης διακυβέρνησης με επαρκή χρηματοδότηση, μετρήσιμους στόχους και δείκτες παρακολούθησης; Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Thank you chair, I will speak in Portuguese. Senhor Vice-Presidente Rafaele Fitto, eu começo por saudar a nova estratégia das regiões ultraperiféricas e enquanto relator da estratégia por parte do Parlamento, julgo que demonstra um compromisso renovado da Comissão com as regiões ultraperiféricas e destaco particularmente a referência à integração sistemática da perspetiva das RUP em tudo aquilo que sejam futuras iniciativas da Comissão Europeia. Da mesma forma saúdo também a apresentação do pacote legislativo que acompanha a estratégia, mas confesso que esperava que fosse mais ambicioso e mais abrangente com medidas dirigidas a todas as regiões ultraperiféricas porque se é certo que há referências aos ETS, ao CBAM, a verdade é que no pacote legislativo estão apenas medidas específicas para as regiões ultraperiféricas francesas. E portanto questionava se haveria margem neste pacote legislativo para introduzirmos novas medidas que englobassem a Madeira, os Açores e as Canárias ou se haverá um segundo pacote legislativo onde tenhamos essas medidas específicas. Ao ler a nova estratégia denoto também que a Comissão reconhece a importância e o papel que a política de coesão e o POSEI têm tido para o desenvolvimento das regiões ultraperiféricas, mas ao passar para a página seguinte da estratégia, quando aborda o MFF, não há qualquer referência ao POSEI.
E portanto a proposta para o próximo orçamento europeu também reduz as verbas destinadas à coesão, deixa o POSEI sem uma dotação própria e isso é algo a que este Parlamento já se manifestou contra.
Além do Parlamento Europeu, há também uma carta a demonstrar uma posição do Conselho, uma carta enviada à Presidente da Comissão Europeia, provavelmente já terá conhecimento, assinada pelo Presidente Emmanuel Macron, pelo Primeiro-Ministro Luís Montenegro e pelo Presidente do Governo de Espanha, Pedro Sánchez, referindo a manutenção do POSEI e a importância que isso teria para as regiões ultraperiféricas. E, portanto, eu considero preocupante que a Comissão reconheça estes instrumentos como fundamentais para as regiões, mas ao mesmo tempo proponha reduzi-los para o próximo ano. Se me permite uma última questão relativamente aos planos nacionais e regionais de parceria, a estratégia refere novamente que os Estados-Membros podem incluir capítulos regionais. Agora, isto não garante que os Estados-Membros o façam e as regiões continuam à mercê de decisões dos governos centrais e, portanto, era importante que houvesse uma referência clara à obrigatoriedade de existir capítulos regionais, neste caso especificamente dedicados às regiões ultraperiféricas. Muito obrigado.
Jacek Protas
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, I will speak Polish. Bardzo serdecznie dziękuję za możliwość tego spotkania. Na początku chciałbym przeprosić za spóźnienie, z przyczyn niezależnych nie mogłem również uczestniczyć w głosowaniu nad raportem, który przygotowywałem, bardzo dotyczącym regionów graniczących z Rosją, Ukrainą i Białorusią. Bardzo serdecznie w tym miejscu wszystkim dziękuję za współpracę przy pracy nad tym raportem. To była konstruktywna praca i osiągnęliśmy kompromisy i dziękuję za to, że raport został dzisiaj przyjęty.
Szanowny Panie Komisarzu, chciałbym również Panu podziękować za reakcję na nasze monity, prośby dotyczące uwzględnienia regionów graniczących z Rosją, Ukrainą i Białorusią przez Komisję Europejską jako obszaru priorytetowego wsparcia. Dziękujemy za to, że w lutym mogliśmy się spotkać, by usłyszeć komunikat Komisji Europejskiej i ogłoszenie strategii dla tych właśnie regionów granicznych. Ale jak Pan powiedział już wcześniej, strategia to tylko początek. Muszą być podjęte konkretne działania, działania przez Komisję Europejską, musi być przyjęty pakiet legislacyjny, czy też w legislacji muszą być uwzględnione te priorytety i te działania, które zapisane są w strategii. A to wymaga konkretnych przedsięwzięć po to, żeby ta strategia nie była tylko zapisem i żeby nie stanowiła dokumentu, który trafi tylko na półkę.
W związku z tym chcę z jednej strony zapytać Pana Komisarza, czy trwają takie prace w Komisji Europejskiej w tym zakresie, jeżeli tak, to w jakim kierunku idą i kiedy możemy spodziewać się jakichś konkretnych propozycji ze strony Komisji w tym zakresie. Jeszcze raz serdecznie dziękuję wszystkim, którzy angażowali się w raport, który dzisiaj został przyjęty.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Gracias, Presidente.
Estimado comisario, como pone en relieve sus estrategias, las regiones ultraperiféricas e islas se enfrentan a desafíos específicos como la falta de conectividad, la dependencia del turismo y una fuerte presión sobre los servicios públicos y la vivienda. La presidenta von der Leyen en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión Europea decía y afirmaba que Europa invertirá en nuestras regiones para garantizar que todas las personas tengan el derecho a permanecer en ellas. Y usted hoy lo apuntaba, es fundamental para nuestros territorios. Por eso, señor Fitto, esperamos con impaciencia y con atención la estrategia europea sobre el derecho a permanecer y también la estrategia de turismo sostenible para poder afrontar los retos que se enfrentan nuestros territorios. Pero la pregunta es muy clara: ¿cómo vamos a garantizar este derecho a nuestros ciudadanos con un presupuesto de cohesión tan limitado?
Necesitamos una asignación específica para todas las regiones y unos fondos que estén a la altura de sus necesidades. No podemos pedir a nuestros territorios que hagan más con menos. Insistimos en que el próximo presupuesto debe de garantizar el acceso a servicios públicos e infraestructuras de calidad para que nadie se vea obligado a marcharse por falta de oportunidades. Muchas gracias.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Κύριε Πίτροπε, θα έλεγα και εγώ ότι πραγματικά εκτιμώ τον τρόπο με τον οποίο δουλεύετε και φαίνεται ότι ακούτε και προσπαθείτε να βλέπετε τα πράγματα από την πλευρά όσων καλούνται να τα εφαρμόσουν στην πράξη. Για τα μικρά νησιά όμως, η επιτυχία θα κριθεί στην καθημερινότητα, στην υγεία, στο νερό, στη στέγαση, στις συγκοινωνίες και στην εκπαίδευση αλλά και στην εργασία. Δύο είναι τα ερωτήματά μου. Θα μπορέσετε να διασφαλίσετε τη θεσμική συμμετοχή των εθνικών και ευρωπαϊκών δικτύων μικρών νησιών στον σχεδιασμό και στην υλοποίησή της; Και όπως ειπώθηκε ξανά, θα το ξαναρωτήσω και εγώ, θα στηρίξετε ομάδες παρακολούθησης από αυτά τα δίκτυα με σαφείς προτεραιότητες και δυνατότητα υποβολής έκθεσης ανά διετία, ιδιαίτερα για το δικαίωμα να μένεις;
Θα ήθελα όμως, κύριε Πίτροπε, αν μου επιτρέπετε, να σας ζητήσω να εντάξετε στη στρατηγική σας και την πρόταση που έχω καταθέσει, δηλαδή το δικαίωμα να μπορείς να επιστρέψεις, να επιστρέφεις, the right to return. Να μπορούν δηλαδή όσοι αναγκάστηκαν να φύγουν από τον τόπο τους να επιστρέψουν, να εργαστούν και να δημιουργήσουν ξανά εκεί. Και υπάρχουν πάρα πάρα πολλοί, με κίνητρα για στέγαση, απασχόληση, παραγωγική δραστηριότητα και χωρίς ηλικιακούς περιορισμούς και αποκλεισμούς. Τώρα το επόμενο Σαββατοκύριακο θα σας πω ότι θα συμμετάσχω στο 17ο συνέδριο του δικτύου μικρών νησιών της Ελλάδας στην Κάσο. Κύριε Πίτροπε, έχετε κάποιο έτσι κάποιο μήνυμα αισιόδοξο να τους μεταφέρω;
Σας ευχαριστώ πάρα πολύ.
Speaker 27
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to the Mr. Executive Vice-President for the answers and concluding remarks.
Raffaele Fitto
Thank you again for your contributions. I would like to start from one point. I think that we can always do better, but we started here in 2021 with an idea in this committee, and I was in this committee. The idea was, the goal was to approve for the first time a strategy for islands and a strategy with a regulatory package for the outermost regions. Today we have.
Then it is clear that we have to continue in this work to implement this. We have many very important challenges also in the perspective of the next MFF. But as you know the next MFF is not in the hands of only one institution. The proposal of the European Commission is very ambitious. Now as you know we have the discussion the debate with the Parliament with the Council and we will see the final financial dimension of the plan.
I think that is a very important results.
But I think that is very important to confirm from my side that the role of the European Parliament it is crucial in this way. Not only for the responsibility that have but also for the work that we are doing. Because for these strategies but also for the all steps I think that the method it will be fundamental. The midterm review of cohesion policy was a very positive example because we spoke before on the priority and we decided the priorities and we decided together also. And this is an important method that we are doing and also in the next work that we have to do for the next national regional partnership plan.
It is very important to focus on the point that we have in the regulation of the next national regional partnership plan and the proposal of the European Commission. Because we have many points about outermost regions about some horizontal issues. For example if we have and we have the pre-allocation for the less developed region of 218 billion euro I think that is a good message for the regions. And also in the dialogue with the European Parliament we put another important point on the other regions because we put the three categories of regions inside the regulation less developed in transition and more developed regions. And we asked clearly to the Member States that if in the proposal don't have the resources for the transition and more developed region have to justify these points.
And I think it is an important part of the work that we are doing. About the other specific point I think that we are working as you know for the first time to have this vision with the different strategies. Probably the last strategies that we are preparing the right to stay is a comprehensive as I said of the other strategies. And we have to emphasize this approach because some of you mentioned the problem of water of housing of infrastructure. And I said before that we have to have a general approach with an integrated approach with the other commissioners.
For example Commissioner Tzitzikostas is working now for the first time because you know that for the first time we have this responsibility inside one portfolio tourism and he is working to present the strategy for tourism. I think that another important part of this approach and we can find inside the strategy for islands and for the outermost region how is important this part and how is important this integrated approach among agriculture tourism infrastructure to give the opportunity to stay to come back.
Yes, I full agree about this. And I know that it is a very difficult situation, but we are working also starting from the part of the Enrico Letta report about this point, because in that report we have an important part about the freedom to stay. And we are working now to create this very close connection with the perspective and the fact that you mentioned that President von der Leyen in Strasbourg during her speech on the State of Union mentioned right to stay, I think that a clear message of the will of the European Commission to go in the right direction in this way. And in general, the work that we have to do also for the next step, it will be very important in the national regional partnership plans. Why?
Because as you know, we are trying to have more simplification and more flexibility. Mid-term review of the current programs was the first exercise in this direction, and the results and the method I can say that was very positive. Now we have to continue in this direction. But when we speak about simplification, for example, I would like to underline the fact that now we have more than 500 programs in the current programs, and it is a problem probably. 27 national regional partnership plans has to have inside the role of the regions, the clear involvement of the cities, and it is important also to keep this strategy.
But I would like to mention the regulation of the national regional partnership plans, because many answers about the question that you asked today are inside this regulation. We can improve this work, we can go in this way, and I believe that also speaking for the regulation package, it is very important the fact that we have the opportunity now to implement, as I said, in the ETS and in the public procurement, because the message is that we started now, but we have to implement in the next steps, and also for the different situation that we have in the different islands, because also in the negotiation with the member states, we had the opportunity in some requests to give a positive answer. But now we have to continue to implement this work also for the other islands. And my message is that we have to go in this way also with an important focus on the islands, the small islands. The Greek colleagues mentioned the small islands.
It is very important also to understand how is possible to connect not only the strategy for the islands, but also the right to stay, because it is very close in the perspective of these territories. And we have to continue our work also to keep, for example, the context of the POSEI programs inside the next national regional partnership plan of the member states where we have the outermost regions, because POSEI it is a very positive experience. The letter of the Prime Minister, it will be an important opportunity to strength this concept and also to have this point inside the negotiation between European Commission and member states when we will arrive to the crucial point to design the specific request in this way.
This is the work that we are doing. I think that it will be important to continue in this direction and as you know, I can give my full availability to work with this committee, to meet, to work with all of you because I think that is very important this very close relationship with European Parliament, not for only for the institutional relationship but also to work well together because as I said many other times, for me it is important because I know the work that you do and I believe that it is fundamental to have this connection also for the work that we are doing. And today, I think that was an important opportunity to present these strategies. These strategies are the first step. Now we have to work together to implement this work and also to open for the next perspective.
Thank you.
Raffaele Fitto
Yes, I mentioned before the Eastern region borders. As you know, I visited all regions to the borders. We organized, we presented the strategy for the Eastern border regions. We present also the first financial instruments like East Invest. We have to continue to work in this way and I believe that also in the next national regional participation, we have to go in this direction.
But I would like also to underline another important point about Interreg programs because in the proposal of the European Commission, we had one billion more in the proposal and I think that could be another important opportunity to continue our work. The Eastern border regions are fundamental because it's not national borders, not Polish border or Finnish border or Baltic borders, but this is a European borders. This is the message and we have to work in this way.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much, Mr. Executive Vice-President Fitto, for your availability, for providing us with this useful information. I look forward to continuing our discussion on 15 October during our joint REGI-COTER meeting. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, our meeting will now continue with the presentation of the study SMEs in critical technologies, enhancing competitiveness through cohesion policy funds, available on our committee's website and in printed copies at the entrance to the room. We have the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Stefan Apostol, one of the authors of the study, who will present an in-depth analysis of the role of EU cohesion policy in supporting SMEs operating in critical technology areas, with a particular focus on biotechnologies, artificial intelligence, advanced connectivity and energy technologies. The analysis focuses on the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods and considers the role of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform. Dr. Stefan Apostol is a senior researcher at Varian. His research focuses on regional development, smart specialization, digitalization and diffusion of digital technologies.
He has also contributed to research and evaluation studies for the European Commission and the European Parliament on cohesion policy, innovation and emerging technologies. Mr. Apostol, you have the floor and then I give the floor to the members of the REGI committee.
Stefan Apostol
Thank you, good morning, thank you for the opportunity to present our study entitled SMEs in critical technologies, enhancing competitiveness through cohesion policy funds. The study was requested by the REGI committee and asks a very practical question: how does cohesion policy funds support SMEs to develop, deploy, scale technologies which are increasingly important for European competitiveness and economic security? We combine cohesion policy data with project data, firm data and case studies and then translate these findings into recommendations for the future MFF, the post-2027 framework.
So objectives of the study in our case there are two objectives. So first we look at how cohesion policy contributes to the strengthening of competitiveness of SMEs in critical technologies and not only how much funding is provided but also where does that funding goes and what it appears to achieve. Second we use this evidence to provide the recommendations for the next framework of the 2028-2034 framework with particular attention to territorial cohesion to scale up and coordination with EU level instruments. So let's first look at the critical technologies and the role of SMEs and let's look into the context of this study. So first starting from the COVID-19 pandemic European Union started to look into its strategic dependencies.
And in 2021 the Commission mapped out its dependencies and identified 137 sensitive ecosystem products. So after the debate on the sovereignty fund and also the EU created in 2023 the EU economic security strategy. So in the strategy they also defined 10 in October defined 10 critical technology areas where there should be focused and identified as the most important for the for the EU competitiveness. So further the discussion moved to the STEP platform. So STEP serves more as an operational framework which brings together these EU instruments it's steering the EU instruments including cohesion policy towards strategic technology.
So the direction of travel is clear. Competitiveness resilience and cohesion have to work together to provide for the European SMEs. When we look at the importance of SMEs we know that SMEs are the key innovators. So the main innovators but not only innovation they are also sources of specialized components technological diffusion and they also anchor these capabilities into the regional ecosystems. Europe overall does not lack research.
In certain industries in certain technological area AI and biotech for example we have good research. We also have good entrepreneurship. However it has a weaker side in terms of turning innovation into commercial scale. So sometimes technologies are capital intensive or highly regulated so there it has it needs to focus and that's where it has its weaknesses. So cohesion policy can help these SMEs build regional capabilities and help them participate into the local value chains.
So the strategy which I already mentioned in 2023 defined 10 critical technologies. And we choose to focus on this study on four of them mainly because they are different. They are different in their needs they are different in their need for finance during different projects in different technologies have different requirements. So we focus on advanced connectivity we focus on energy on AI and biotechnologies mainly because a project in biotechnology validation process or an energy demonstration project is different. So they do not focus do not have the same capital needs or time horizons or infrastructure requirements.
That's why a single model cannot work for all these technological areas. But first let's look into the overall general barriers which SMEs faced which we identified in the literature. So we identified five main branches of these barriers. So first is financing mainly financing for the scale up. So this gap is quite visible for the technological validation for for this risk tolerant capital where where firms need more more support.
The second is the regulatory or administrative complexity. So there sometimes certain industries certain technological areas have more create more fixed costs for these smaller firms. And cohesion policy wants to address smaller firms so these industries somehow have a greater barrier for for innovating and and scaling later.
The third is skills. We do not need general skills anymore, we need specific skills for specific critical technological areas. We need engineering, we need manufacturing skills, and also regulatory capabilities. Then we focus on infrastructure. Certain technological areas need different types of infrastructure.
For example, pilot lines, clean rooms for the biotech, testing facilities or computing capacity. So having this, it's also an issue sometimes for several SMEs in different areas. So these constraints are cumulative. But the last one is global competition and dependencies. The European SMEs are competing in global markets with US companies, with Chinese companies, and they have a greater scale.
So these constraints all taken together are limiting the SMEs. So even if an SME is successfully doing an R&D project, it doesn't mean that it will reach the market. So it can still fail to reach this industrial deployment. So we need to consider that. So now let's move from the context to evidence.
What does the data show? So when we look at the contribution of the cohesion policy, we can see that there is much more focus on advanced connectivity and AI technologies, while technological areas like energy or biotech receive much less, little over 100 millions. For if, for example, advanced connectivity received 690 million and AI similar amount, these two are receiving much less, biotechnology and energy. So the second presentation is about, so here I would like to mention that the fall in the finance is not due to that there is less contribution, it's just the data represented here is the ending of the previous period, 2014-2020, so these are late projects. When we look at where does the support goes, to which stage of development, we can see that technological transfer and R&D receives much more in all these technological areas, much more support, and much less for the market deployment, for infrastructure and human capital.
So this is important to show because it shows that cohesion policies helps firm validate technology, but less present where it needs to support firms to commercialize and deploy innovation to the market. Looking at the representation of the fund, we can see that there is a strong territorial reach. So cohesion policy support is spread across Europe, mainly in the regions where it needs to reach, in the Eastern Europe, we can see strong hubs in the Southern. So we can see these developing regions where it reaches and supports SMEs. But this diffusion is not, is not even.
So for again, as mentioned, digital technologies, for example, receive more support and reach higher territorially, spread more easily. However, in terms of biotechnology, for example, the support is concentrated into several hubs.
So the main point here is not that every technology has to spread everywhere, but we need to connect these less developed regions to the stronger ones, to the stronger European hubs. Looking into data into this impact, what does impact cohesion policy has, we did this study which is a counterfactual study and we saw a positive effect on the productivity of energy firms. So you can see a positive effect which is the interpretation is quite simple. If it's above the line, it's a positive effect and significant. However, there is no clear effect on turnover and employment.
So the main point here is not that it does not have an effect, it's just it takes longer time. Also in other technologies the effect is not visible, is not significant because it takes longer time for this innovation to reach the market and the effects are visible at a later stage. For example, recently I've been to a conference which studies a similar thing and they looked more into AI and they showed that the effect might be visible after the ninth year. So after the investment took place, it takes a long period to see some effect on the firms. So overall different industries, for example, why energy is significant because the technologies they have are closer to the market.
So they invest and then they are reaching the market. However, in other industries this is not visible. So the short-term indicators capture only a part of this effect because certain technologies have longer innovation cycles. Overall when you look to the cohesion policy from the case studies, we also had communication with several beneficiaries. So overall we can see that cohesion policy works well as an enabler.
Yeah, it helps firms reach and go into innovation, take risks only where the market, mainly where the market is reluctant to fund such early research. So cohesion policy serves very well at this point. So the market is not funding here. In energy projects, for example, we see a more significant effect because of this closure to the market. But also cohesion policy is not only about productivity impacts.
Yes, it creates also collaboration, it's also helps knowledge diffusion, it improves the skills regionally. So it can help firms reach this validation and those firms which struggle with finance. However, a follow-up support on the commercial or the scale-up part would be much needed and not only in the early stage finance of R and D. So this was quite often occurring in the interviews that a later stage support would be needed. Let's move now to the policy recommendation which we provided based on our findings.
So first of all, cohesion policy is necessary but is not sufficient. So it's stronger at early stages, however, it's a little bit weaker at scale-up and deployment. So demonstration, first industrial deployment, market entry, scale-up needs to be supported as well. The second is the administrative and financing barriers for these small high-risk firms, it's also there. Yes, so asking for co-financing or liquidity constraints affect mainly these smaller high-risk firms which cohesion policy wants to reach.
So the question is after 2027 is not to replace cohesion policy, but how to connect its local place-based effects with the instruments which can provide to help SMEs scale and reach the market.
So we provide five priorities for the next MFF. So first is strategic concentration on fewer mature projects. Yes, so helping and being more selective, more ambitious in later stage demonstration with first industrial deployments and so on. However, helping as well less developed regions and transition regions get closer to these central hubs is also important. Second, it's about sector-sensitive design.
As I already mentioned, the innovation cycle is different between different technological areas. So here, for example, capital-intensive energy or biotechnology projects may have longer duration, higher ceilings, and may require different needs in terms of infrastructure. The third is stronger sequencing of EU-level instruments, EU financing instruments. So connecting cohesion policy with Horizon Europe, with InvestEU, Innovation Fund, and having a clear sequence for helping SMEs to reach the market and deploy their innovation. So that a regional project has a clear route in terms of financing.
The fourth one is about reducing administrative and financing barriers for high-risk SMEs. What we offer here, for example, are options like simplified cost options or more predictable milestone-based payments or liquidity measures where this is justified by the need. The last one, but one of the most important currently, is the use of ESF for critical technological skills. During time, cohesion policy helped with general skills, however, in this case, we need specific skills for these technological areas. Also, it can be aligned with smart specialization and to focus more on these technological areas rather than general upskilling.
In the end, I would like to bring in front of you three main points. So first, cohesion policy remains central to European competitiveness because Europe needs also capabilities. It also needs infrastructure and firms across all regions, not only in some hubs, and that's what cohesion policy helps us do. At the same time, we need a stronger scale-up logic after the post-2027. It does help with the early stage, however, we need a stronger path, a stronger sequencing of regional support and EU-level instruments.
And the final one, STEP, which comes timely in a timely moment and offers a workable blueprint, a framework for how to arrange these funding channels and allows for a stronger coordination, mainly to focus the funds into these areas. So therefore, we should let cohesion policy reach its territorial benefits and make the path for innovation and for SMEs clear and more continuous. Thank you, and I look forward for your questions and any... Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to Mrs. Sofie Eriksson from S&D.
Sofie Eriksson
Thank you, Chair, and also thank you so much for this very interesting study. We can see that small businesses need both financing and access to skills, testing facilities, and infrastructure to grow in critical technologies. We can also see the need for territorial balance and recommends that you're recommending also ring-fenced funding for less developed and transition region. While this is not what you're not saying that we you don't have an explicit recommendation for a dedicated allocation to the northern sparsely populated regions, you still raises you can see that this raises an important question about how their specific needs should be addressed.
I also want to say to the room that we should remember that the Commission MFF proposal does not include the northern sparsely populated areas allocation that we currently have. So we do see forward looking if we don't do anything that this is money that will be removed from these areas. And this is very relevant in the northern Sweden where I represent, where major industrial investments create opportunities right now and need for smaller businesses and local suppliers, but of course also require access to skills, infrastructure and financing. So my questions to you are what safeguards do you think are needed for sparsely populated regions such as northern Sweden, but not only, to turn these investments into long lasting opportunities for local SMEs, jobs and regional development? How can we best ensure that funding in the next programming period reaches the businesses and regions where it can make the greatest difference?
Do you have any concrete proposals? Thanks.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Thank you, Chair. Good morning and thank you for your presentation. The study highlights that competitiveness depends not only on the quality of projects, but also on the infrastructure, skills, access and funding available in each region. However, I would like to point out that the next EU budget will create or strengthen instruments with greater emphasis on performance, such as the European Competitiveness Fund, Horizon Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility, that will potentially concentrate resources in regions that already have greater capacity to absorb them. Therefore, I would like to ask you two questions.
Do you consider it is sufficient for the European Union to strengthen regions that already have well-developed technological ecosystems, or in order to compete with the US or China, we must invest in technological and productive capacity of less developed regions? The second question, would you recommend ring-fencing, bridge funding and technical assistance for less developed regions? Do you believe these safeguards should apply to the performance-based funding instruments or only within the framework of cohesion policy? Thank you.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the authors of the study for bringing their findings and their more interesting policy proposals before us today. I believe this report is important in one particular context. Often the role of SMEs is downplayed or not emphasized enough in terms of support from either the Commission or indeed from member states. For instance, Ireland's critical technology sector accounts for about 13% of the country's GDP, yet often the focus is principally on the big ones, Apple, Google, Microsoft, the people who employ over 160,000 people and I suppose do bring in a critical share of corporation tax. But in contrast, we have hundreds of SMEs, particularly in the regions, who do not get this favored treatment, who do not get the priority and the preference when it comes to critical areas, and you have highlighted today some of those most important areas, particularly funding.
I'm very disappointed in an Irish context that we've already identified there's a lack of support from our financial institutions and our banks for this critical sector. They often fail to finance digital products within SMEs because of a lack of expertise within their own institutions.
They haven't got the people on board. In contrast to other member states such as Germany and Luxembourg where they have specific dedicated financing products. So I think there's a clear need to focus on that. I'm also encouraged by your reference to the need for that strategic concentration, particularly in areas of transition. I would say areas where we were promised a just transition in particular.
There are new SMEs popping up in these regions as they turn away from decarbonization, but they're not getting the strategic supports that they should get, and therefore I feel they should be supported within the context of the forthcoming MFF. Thank you very much for your work and I look forward to seeing further elaboration of the policies you referred to.
Speaker 40
Thank you chair, and hello to everybody. I think that this study really highlights the financial gap that small and medium enterprises face when they're moving from the research and innovation towards demonstration, scaling up and commercialization. But I believe we also need to look at this challenge through a territorial perspective. SMEs developing critical technologies in less developed regions and member states often start from the significantly weaker position. They have more limited access to capital and specialized infrastructure, less skilled workers and research ecosystems, while their capacity to co-finance projects can also be more constrained.
So my question is how can cohesion policy on the new MFF ensure that support for the critical technologies also reach SMEs in less developed regions and member states, and that the transition from innovation to commercialization does not further extend this existing territorial disparities. I know that you present part of the measure that you plan, but I think that we must be here more concrete and that this measures must be more reasonable, more understanding for the local and regional governments who will applying this measures on the field and of course then developing the regions in this way. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Now I give the floor directly to Mr. Nicola De Michelis, Director REGIO G Smart and Sustainable Growth and Programme Implementation.
Nicola De Michelis
Chair, thank you very much. Professor, thank you very much for your work that comes at a very timely moment when we are starting discussing the next round of cohesion programming. So very timely, very interesting. Let me make two reflection. The first is that as the report says, cohesion is already contributing massively to the competitiveness agenda of the Union and overcome that reputation that the policy sometimes has of being a policy for the poor and for doing not particularly useful things.
And in fact, a lot is happening. And you said it with the STEP initiative, we have invited member states and regions to focus their investment on the most strategic sectors. But in fact, that was already happening thanks to, and this is mentioned in the report, to the smart specialization strategies. A study, another study indicate that 85% of the priorities identified by the member states and the regions in their strategies are related to STEP critical technologies.
So things are happening. We have mobilized with the STEP initiative 15 billion. So this clearly shows that the policy is really at the center of the competitiveness agenda, obviously with one point that the MEPs have raised, by focusing on those regions that are lagging behind and therefore helping them to raise their to move up the technological frontier. And there is another instrument that is important and is the innovation the interregional innovation innovation instrument that allows SMEs to work together across regions on same sectors. My second reflection is on the future.
And this is particularly relevant in the context also of the role that the Parliament and this house will play in the co-legislative process. The first is precisely on the role of smart specialization. Should these strategies continue to be the instrument that regions and Member States use to organize and reach that strategic concentration that the report is inviting Member States to have or not? Because clearly the way in which the smart specialization are built in the legislative framework is more fragile than it is in the current programming period. So a question is whether the smart specialization strategy should continue or not and to what extent to be a leading instrument.
The second, very much following on on one of the key recommendation, is whether investment in productive sector and investment in technology and research should much more strongly linked. At the moment this is clearly not the case. Investment for SMEs are tends to be very often of a generic nature and not linked to the innovation and research part of the same program. So maybe these links could be made. And the last reflection for you is what the role of the I3 instrument should be.
Should continue to have a role in connecting regions less developed, transition and more developed in building value chains across Europe on these strategic sectors. Thank you very much.
Stefan Apostol
Yes, so I will start from the first question about how to connect these. Thank you for the questions. I will start with the first question about how to connect these outermost regions and specifically North Sweden region. Usually during time from I will I will speak also from my experience and from my knowledge, it's not only the study here. So how can we connect this?
Because I hear answer two questions about how to connect the the most peripheral regions but also how to connect the low-developed regions. Recently appeared such a such a concept as complementarity. So we should not try to replicate things which are already done in regions nearby and try to become as our neighbors necessarily. Because like if you ask a region which is because during during history population concentrated to these core regions, yeah, to the core urban regions. And they moved, they migrated towards these core regions.
And those regions who are more in the periphery, they lack, I would say, this human capacity. Yeah. So trying to bring those capacities and compete with these already developed regions, I don't know if that is the the main the main point. So what we should do is should rather learn from our closest neighbors. So you you look at your neighbors which are the closest and you can get in touch with them.
If they already implemented something, they learned something before, they want some some they implemented some big projects, which they should be invited and a collaboration should start and and those to serve as a as a teacher, as a role model, which will be helping those regions. I think we are often helping independent regions, but we don't focus on these synergies which can happen. I think if a region is good in something, it should help or it should collaborate and somehow help because otherwise you double the same efforts, yeah, you over you double you spend twice on the same things when there is this spillover effect of already developed regions. So this could be a way of of integrating, most mainly enhancing this collaboration of already developed regions which already learned their lessons and they can offer something to the low-developed regions because otherwise you have to teach that low-developed region from scratch everything what the already developed one has and you spend a lot there. So that will be a loss.
Regarding the focus on the the second question now. I don't know if that answers entirely, I cannot offer you solutions which are grandiose or something, but I can tell you from from the experience what is visible in the research arena that we try to focus more on this complementarity. Let's collaborate. You know this thing, I know this, let's let's come together and create something. So this interconnection between the regions, between knowledge flow, it's important.
Regarding the focus of the of new funds like competitiveness funds on on these already developed hubs and already developed regions, that is true, that is a worry and and we wrote some research for for other for other institutions about this. So it's a big worry. However, again, I bring the same argument. You cannot help those low-developed regions compete at the same level with the with the already developed, they're already running much ahead. So they already have the knowledge.
Like helping those low-developed regions catch up will be very costly. So and the human capital which they already lost if they migrated, bringing it back I I do not know if that would be capable. And there is this worry about focusing on hubs, but I think we also need to enhance it. We need to be competitive with the with other powers. So you help those regions be competitive and try to help those ones to to reach behind.
You cannot focus all your efforts on these low-developed regions. Yeah, like we can try to because cohesion policy overall, from from my perspective, shouldn't focus entire purely on innovation. That's not its goal. It's cohesion policy, which means it it's an enabler, it creates the condition for the for it creates the infrastructure, it creates the skills for this technology. So it shouldn't its main focus it shouldn't be innovation and this radical breakthrough research, right?
It should be creating the conditions, in my opinion. And then connecting this chain of funding instruments like Horizon, because Horizon can focus on innovation on this breakthrough and let this create a synergy again between funds, between different funds. But they have to be closely put and aligned together. You bring this to the table, I bring this to the table, so that you don't double spend, yes, so that you spend on skills here and on research also here and then that fund also funds this and so it has to be a an alignment between the funding.
So here again about the financial capital, so SMEs in less developed regions, I cannot promise that if you invest in research in a less developed region, that region will immediately come to succeed in competitiveness. You should also look at its endowment, what skills it has, what infrastructure, what knowledge is created, what is our basic, for example, if you bring the smart specialization, right, you should look at what the region focused before. I do not know if smart specialization does not offer a very clear solution for these less developed regions. It says that it helps these low developed regions, but those regions which are already weak in terms of skills and capabilities, it's very hard to bring back to compete. So this complementarity between regions and between funds should be there.
If here at the question, answering the question if smart specialization shall continue, it should continue in identifying and in the entrepreneurial discovery way, yes, it has to define where should we focus, what should we prioritize, however, the funding structure has to be also streamlined between cohesion, between InvestEU, between Horizon and so on. The connection, now I will answer about the connection between the productive sector and the innovation, indeed, that's what we enhanced in the study, that we should bring this innovation to the market, we should create the conditions, that's why we have the scale-up strategy, that's why we created the scale-up because we saw that we lack this bringing the innovation to the market, to deployment and to enter new markets. So that's for the other one about the I3, I cannot answer right now because I did not look into it, but that's what I can answer for now. Other questions you could write and we can answer.
Speaker 41
Any interventions? No. Okay, thank you very much, our meeting is finished. We prepare for coordinators' meeting, thank you very much.