Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting REGI-COTER meeting
Legenda
Indicatori della trascrizione
- testo Frase in riproduzione
- testo Risultato di ricerca
- testo Intervento citato dal link che avete aperto
Cliccate su una frase per riprodurre il video da quel momento. Selezionate del testo per citarlo con oratore, orario e link.
Altre opzioni
Sfasamento
Sfasamento della trascrizione
Esporta
Replay
Versioni di questo video
- Replay Versione definitiva · 15 ottobre 2026Visualizzata
- Registrato in diretta Trasmesso in diretta il 15 ottobre 2026
Le trascrizioni possono differire leggermente da una versione all'altra.
REGI European Parliament
Segui le sue seduteVasco ALVES CORDEIRO
Thank you so much, Chair Benea. Thank you for your gracious hospitality. A special greeting to all members, both from the REGI Committee but also from the COTER Commission of the CoR. It's a pleasure to be here and of course a special greeting also to Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto for his availability to be here with us and to debate and go a little bit deeper, if I may say so, in the way that this both the committee and commission, COTER Commission in this case, understands the challenges we have ahead. Se me permitem, eu fazendo uso da prerrogativa que o nosso anfitrião abriu e estabeleceu, eu gostaria também de falar na minha língua materna e no caso concreto em português.
Oratore 1
Essa reunião acontece num momento decisivo. Julgo que todos estamos conscientes disso. Da mesma forma que me parece que também todos estaremos conscientes que as alterações que a proposta de orçamento da Comissão Europeia 2028-2034 representam vão muito para além daqueles que são os desafios que qualquer orçamento apresentaria em qualquer circunstância. Temos pois aquilo que já seriam os desafios de um orçamento. E para além disso, temos ainda os desafios daquelas que são alterações radicais à forma como os fundos europeus passarão a ter vencimento, obviamente essa proposta, passarão a ser implementados na Europa, o mesmo é dizer a forma como a União Europeia funcionará no futuro.
E há algumas questões que me parecem importantes termos presente não só nessa reunião, mas no debate e nas discussões que aqui estão em causa e que se prendem exatamente com as principais alterações que esta proposta traz em termos de funcionamento da União Europeia. Eu peço, sublinho aliás, que nesta minha abordagem eu gostaria de centrar-me essencialmente nessas alterações quanto ao modo de funcionamento da União Europeia, deixando para outro momento ou outra ocasião ou mais tarde aquelas que são as questões que dizem respeito exatamente aos desafios que cada orçamento traz e que podem aliás ser resumidos numa expressão muito simples: é que o dinheiro nunca é suficiente para tudo aquilo que nós queremos fazer. Esse é um verdadeiro desafio. Mas voltando à questão dos desafios, há duas questões que me parecem essenciais. Esta proposta levanta a questão de saber por que razão a forma, o critério pelo qual se passa a aferir, se passa a avaliar o cumprimento dos objetivos da União Europeia que resultam naturalmente do seu orçamento deixa de ser um critério territorial, deixa de ser um critério ligado às comunidades territoriais.
Oratore 8
Em segundo lugar, a questão é também por que razão se prescinde agora, e é importante salientar agora, porque até agora não era assim, por que razão é que se prescinde do papel que as instituições europeias têm de garantir que na execução dos fundos também os poderes subnacionais têm uma intervenção e têm um papel. Esses dois aspetos estão em causa na proposta da Comissão. Esses dois aspetos até ao momento, na minha opinião, não foram respondidos satisfatoriamente.
O Parlamento Europeu e o Comité das Regiões têm desenvolvido um trabalho exatamente de alertar não apenas para a importância desses dois aspetos, mas sobretudo para os riscos que se corre se estes aspetos não forem acautelados. Riscos legais, é verdade. É preciso não esquecermos que no meio de tudo isto ainda temos tratados que fixam objetivos à União, que fixam determinadas missões à União. Podemos discutir se essas missões precisam e esses objetivos precisam de ser atualizados ou não, mas isso é outra conversa. O facto é que agora o que temos é que um dos objetivos fundamentais da União é a coesão económica, social e territorial.
Oratore 9
E não há justificação nem interpretação possível que nos possa dizer que a partir daqui, de 2028, o objetivo deixa de ser a coesão territorial, social e económica. Mas também as consequências que isso traz ao próprio projeto europeu. O valor da coesão não é apenas um valor de desenvolvimento económico, social e territorial. O valor da coesão é também um valor democrático. Releva para a vitalidade democrática da União.
Oratore 8
Porque nós não podemos legitimamente esperar que uma comunidade que se sente abandonada, que se sente esquecida, que se sente, perdoem-me a crueza da expressão, que se sente desprezada, não traduza esse sentimento numa forma muito concreta de repúdio, através do voto, ou não indo votar, ou então exatamente votando em posições mais radicais e extremistas. E é neste contexto que eu gostaria de salientar, apesar da dimensão desta tarefa, que eu gostaria de salientar três aspetos. O primeiro, a visão clara que o Comité das Regiões tem posto e tem demonstrado quanto àquilo que está em causa e, sobretudo, as propostas que existem para evitar estes riscos e esse caminho negativo. Em segundo lugar, salientar a identidade de pontos de vista entre o Parlamento Europeu e o Comité das Regiões nesses aspetos que são verdadeiramente essenciais para o futuro da Europa. E em terceiro lugar, porque me parece também ser um ato de justiça, salientar a disponibilidade do Vice-Presidente Raffaele Fitto, salientar o seu empenho de, mesmo a partir de posições diferentes, tentar e buscar construir aqui uma solução que seja capaz de salvaguardar o que é essencial.
E no meio de todas estas nossas diferenças, é importante também salientar essa vontade comum que nos une de alcançar um bom resultado. Se o faremos ou não, neste momento não é possível ainda dizê-lo. Mas que existe essa vontade, e isso, disso eu não tenho a menor dúvida. Muito obrigado a todos.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you, Mr. Vasco Alves Cordeiro. Executive Vice-President Fitto, we would like to invite you to share your views on how the Union can respond to the territorial challenges that it is facing and how the future MFF and the national and regional partnership plans can help turn these challenges into opportunities for all our territories. Executive Vice-President, the floor is yours.
Raffaele Fitto
Thank you, honorable chairs, honorable members, many thanks for the invitation to address this joint REGI-COTER committee. It is a pleasure to be with you again.
First of all, I would like to thank all of you who took part in the debates held this week during the European Week of Regions and Cities. Once again, these discussions showed how important local authorities are. You are the ones who implement cohesion policy on the ground and are closest to the real needs of our citizens. You play a vital role in turning our common European ambitions into reality. As we know, these needs differ from one territory to another.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. We are therefore committed to adapt our support to the specific needs and challenges of each territory. This is why, as we modernize cohesion policy, we focus on four key principles: simplification, flexibility, solutions tailored to the needs of each territory, better integration with other policy areas. From the very beginning of my mandate, I have made the continuous modernization of cohesion policy one of my key priorities. A first important step in this direction was the mid-term review.
The outcome is impressive. By the end of 2025, 25 Member States on a voluntary basis had submitted 186 program amendment requests, redirecting close to 35 billion euros towards the new priorities: competitiveness, defense and civil preparedness, focusing on dual use, affordable and sustainable housing, the energy transition and water resilience. This demonstrates that in demanding times and challenging circumstances, cohesion policy continues to adapt and address our challenges. This success was possible thanks to an efficient consultation process with all relevant institutions, allowing the regulation to be adopted on time. My thanks to all of you involved.
And it is in this spirit that we are preparing the next multiannual financial framework. We are now entering a decisive phase. Our priority must be to reach an agreement in good time to ensure a smooth start of the 2028-2034 period and continuity of investment. The national and regional partnership plans are at the center of the future budget, bringing reforms and investments together and better linking EU priorities with national and regional needs. As you know, negotiations are still ongoing.
But we can already draw some important conclusions. In particular, there seems to be broad support among Member States in the Council for the overall structure and architecture proposed by the Commission. This is an important starting point for our work. Today, I would like to address some of the concerns you have raised and clarify a few important points. First, with the proposal, we aim to make cohesion policy simpler and more effective.
We propose a multiannual financial framework that can respond to new challenges, offer greater flexibility and maximize the impact of every euro invested. The national and regional partnership plans introduce simplification. They bring together interventions currently covered by 14 different funds and over 500 different programs. We will now have 27 national and regional partnership plans. An integrated approach, creating synergies among these policies, not competition among them.
A performance-based approach, including the combination of investment with reforms.
Second, cohesion policy will remain a long-term investment policy. Water management, competitiveness, housing, energy are all long-term investments. Third, support will continue to focus on the regions. We keep the three categories of the regions: less developed, transition, and more developed regions. We also preserve the fundamental principles of cohesion policy through shared management, multi-level governance, and clear partnership.
And let me also recall President von der Leyen's letter concerning the regional check. It underlines the importance of ensuring that the regional dimension is properly reflected in the preparation and implementation of the future plans. Simplification goes hand in hand with strong regional involvement. Another important point is the preparation and drafting of the national regional partnership plans. Member states and regions should not wait for the final legislation before starting the preparation of the plans.
They need to begin preparing now to ensure that the new programming period can start on time and to safeguard continuity of investment and support on the ground. Partnership must be at the center of this preparation. This brings me to another essential point. National, regional, and local authorities, together with the economic and social partners and civil society, should be involved in this preparation from an early stage. Strong ownership by all relevant stakeholders will contribute to more effective and targeted plans that respond to territorial needs and opportunities.
We will support member states, partners, and beneficiaries in adapting to the new features of the future framework. It will offer new opportunities for further simplification. We can build on the experience of the current programming period. We also stand ready to support national authorities and stakeholders as they prepare for a more performance-based delivery model, while maintaining a strong focus on accountability and sound financial management. To prepare us all for the future national regional partnership plan, we have been putting important building blocks in place.
As I mentioned at the start of my speech, Europe is not a single territory. It is diverse. Each region faces different realities, different challenges. If we want European policies to work, we need to understand those challenges and understand the territories we are working for. But while we prepare the next programming period, we must not lose sight of our immediate responsibility: delivering the investments already available.
The mid-term review has shown that we can act, adapt, and redirect resources towards new priorities, but there is still room to improve. We need to accelerate implementation, reduce delays, and ensure that available funds reach our territories faster. This is a shared responsibility. The Commission, member states, and regions must all play their part. Our credibility also depends on our capacity to deliver concrete results.
And the best way to demonstrate the value of cohesion policy is to make full and effective use of the resources we already have. This must be a priority for all of us, alongside the negotiation of the next budget. Our territorial strategies are another important part of this work. They help us respond to specific territorial challenges, both in the current programming period and in preparing the next one. Since we last met, we adopted the EU Agenda for Cities in December 2025.
This was followed in February 2026 with the communication on the EU's eastern border regions. And this year in June, we adopted the strategy for islands, as well as the strategy and the legislative package on the outermost regions last month. All these initiatives respond to different and unique situations. Each situation has its own reality and therefore needs a different approach. And we are preparing another very important strategy: the right to stay.
Because every person deserves quality of life and the chance to build a future in the place they call home. People should have real opportunities where they live: job opportunities, adequate infrastructure and quality public services. The right to stay strategy is a key political priority for the European Commission. It is reflected in our Union's priorities for 2024-2029, the proposal for the next MFF and my mission letter from President von der Leyen. President von der Leyen also mentioned the right to stay in her State of the Union address last month.
I know that this is an important topic for many of you here and for your constituents back in your regions and cities. It is also clear that the challenge on the right to stay cuts across many policy areas. That is why this strategy must take a cross-cutting approach. And this is the approach we are taking. My responsibilities as Executive Vice-President cover a wide range of areas, from cohesion and reforms to agriculture, transport, tourism, fisheries and the blue economy.
This gives me an opportunity to bring different strands of our work together and contribute to a more joined-up approach. But the right to stay also depends on areas beyond my portfolio, including connectivity, education, jobs and skills, and access to essential services, all of which are important to ensuring that people can thrive where they live. To deepen my understanding, I am travelling across Europe visiting remote and rural areas affected by depopulation and economic decline to speak directly with citizens and hear about the challenges they face on the ground. In May, I hosted a high-level event to launch the preparation for the strategy here in the European Parliament, together with Enrico Letta and the Cypriot Council Presidency. We also launched a call for evidence to encourage greater participation.
I would like to thank all of you who responded. In total, we received more than 700 contributions from all 27 Member States. We are now analysing these contributions and working towards presenting the strategy early next year. Honourable Chairs, honourable members, cohesion policy is a powerful tool that can turn European priorities into concrete results on the ground. We need a cohesion policy that is strong enough to respond to Europe's changing priorities, but flexible enough to reflect the diversity of our regions and cities.
A policy that takes account of the specific needs and strengths of different territories through a genuinely place-based approach. In this context, your role as elected representatives of our regions and cities is crucial. I look forward to continuing this work with you. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much, Executive Vice-President Fitto. Let us now move to discussion with REGI and COTER members. As is our standard practice, we'll start with a first round of interventions, approximately two and a half minutes each by the political coordinators of both REGI and COTER. Please note that Executive Vice-President Fitto will need to leave us at 10:30. Chair Cordeiro will give the floor to the COTER coordinators, and we start quickly with REGI EPP coordinator, Mr. Pascal Arimont.
Pascal Arimont
Ja, vielen Dank, sehr geehrte Herren Präsidenten, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar. Wir sind tatsächlich vielleicht in einem historischen Moment, den wir auch so wahrnehmen sollten, um die Wichtigkeit der Entscheidungen, die wir jetzt treffen müssen, auch wahrzunehmen und sie zu verstehen. Ich glaube, wenn man die heutige Welt danach analysieren müsste, wie wir in Zukunft den nächsten sieben oder den nächsten 14 Jahren Probleme lösen können, die jeden einzelnen Bürger in unseren Kommunen, Dörfern, Städten, Ländern tatsächlich betreffen, dann kann man diese Probleme als solche definieren, die unter anderem, aber vor allem auch mit einer Europäischen Union, mit einer starken Europäischen Union gelöst werden können. Man kann davon ausgehen, dass diese Probleme einen internationalen Charakter haben und eine starke Europäische Union eine Rolle dort spielen muss, um diese Probleme tatsächlich lösen zu können. Ich glaube, da sind wir uns alle einig.
Ich rede von Digitalisierung, ich rede von Klimaveränderung, ich rede von der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer europäischen Wirtschaft, ich rede von Landwirtschaft, ich rede davon, dass wir in allen Ländern mittlerweile ein sogenanntes Housing-Problem haben. All diese Dinge können wir lösen, wenn es eine starke Europäische Union neben der nationalen Ebene, neben der regionalen Ebene gibt. In diesem Moment, wo wir diese Feststellung machen, reden wir über den Haushalt, das heißt, das Geld, was die Europäische Union zur Verfügung haben wird, um all diese Ziele zu verwirklichen. Und in diesem Moment streiten wir uns sehr darum, dass dieser Haushalt wahrscheinlich sogar noch kleiner sein soll als das, was wir bisher gekannt haben. Und verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch, aber ich glaube nicht, dass die Kommission diese Diskussion führt.
Sie hat einen ambitionierten Haushalt vorgelegt, aber wir müssen diese Diskussion in den Ländern führen, wo man der Meinung ist, dass man mit weniger EU mehr erreichen kann. Genau das Gegenteil ist heute im Jahre 2026 der Fall. Unsere Rolle, unsere geopolitische Rolle, und da spreche ich noch gar nicht davon, welche Rolle wir in dem Bereich Verteidigung im Moment zu spielen haben, das muss ja auch mit europäischem Geld finanziert werden. In diesem Moment diskutieren wir darüber, den von der Kommission vorgeschlagenen Haushalt um 30 Prozent zu kürzen. Ich halte das für politisch völlig falsch und wir sollten den Mut haben, das auch überall dort zu sagen, wo politische Entscheidungen im Moment getroffen werden.
Hinten im Ratsgebäude sitzen im Moment die Premierminister Europas und diskutieren darüber, wie wir Geld sparen können, wo wir Geld nicht ausgeben. Ich bin auch dafür, dass wir sparsam sind, aber ich glaube, wir müssen strategischer denken. Und Kohäsionspolitik gehört dazu.
Wegruf noch mal machen und das ist der, Sie haben eben gesagt, dass ist etwas, was ich nicht so gerne höre, dass wir von 500 Programmen auf 27 runtergehen und dadurch eine Art Erleichterung oder eine, ja, wir machen weniger kompliziert einen Politikbereich, den wir alle gut kennen, das ist der Kohäsionspolitikbereich. Aber es ist ja eine falsche Aussage, denn die Diskussion, die denn da stattfinden, finden ja zwischen der Kommission und den Ländern dann nicht mehr statt, aber zwischen dem Land und der Region statt. Und wenn das heißt, dass wir von 500 auf 27 runtergehen, dass eine Region nichts mehr zu sagen hätte, dann ist das falsch verstandene Politik, denn am Ende des Tages sind die Regionen diejenigen, in denen die Investitionen bestmöglich gemacht werden müssen. Und wir müssen diese Regionen stärken, nicht nur indem wir das sagen, sondern indem wir am Ende des Tages diesen Regionen auch Entscheidungsbefugnis geben, die sie im Moment im aktuellen Text nicht haben. Deswegen ein Wegruf an alle Regionen, die hier sind, helft uns beiden dabei, dies in den Verhandlungen mit dem Rat durchzukriegen, dass eine Region nicht nur gefragt wird, sondern am Ende des Tages auch mitentscheiden darf.
Oratore 13
Thank you. Thank you, now the floor goes to the EPP coordinator in COTER, Mr. Ivan Žaglar. The allotted time was two and a half minutes.
Ivan Žaglar
Yes, thank you. Dear Executive Vice-President Fitto, dear chairs, dear colleagues. We are fully aware that the negotiation of the MFF are entering a decisive phase and that the European Union is facing new challenges. The next financial framework must enable Europe to respond to these challenges, but this must not come at the expense of traditional policies. Cohesion and agriculture policy have been in place for a long time, but they remain just as important today and continue to adapt to changing economic and social circumstances.
Therefore, it is essential to maintain the overall level of funding in the next financial framework, as we have consistently emphasized. As discussion on the next MFF advance, we have a unique opportunity to modernize, strengthen and simplify the way European policy are delivered on the ground. We should seize the moment to finally make a major steps towards true and comprehensive simplification. And it is important to acknowledge that simplification share of the bureaucratic burden is often created not only at the European level, but also by national administration through additional requirements and controls. We therefore need a common commitment at all levels of governance to reduce unnecessary administrative burden.
At the same time, I also see a potential risk under the banner of simplification, we must not weaken the role of regions and cities. Simplification should never become centralization. Dear Mr. Fitto, I also welcome the initiative on the right or freedom to stay. Our policies should create opportunity not only for people to remain in their regions, but also for them to come back and invest the skills, knowledge and experience in their local communities. If we truly want to support the right to stay and the right to return, this ambition must be backed by adequate financial resources.
Local authorities cannot be expected to deliver these objectives without the necessary means. Thank you for your attention.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Gracias, presidente.
La cohesión económica, social y territorial lleva con nosotros en la Unión Europea desde aquel 1986 en que entró en el Acta Única y el FEDER incluso antes, desde 1975, y ha proporcionado un horizonte de bienestar a nuestros ciudadanos durante estos casi 40 años que lleva funcionando. Hoy tenemos unos retos que han cambiado totalmente, pero el esfuerzo de los legisladores tiene que ser estar a la altura de las circunstancias como lo estuvieron nuestros colegas en aquellos años 80. Tenemos la crisis de la vivienda, el aumento de las desigualdades territoriales, el cambio demográfico, la transición verde y digital, las amenazas geopolíticas y la creciente presión sobre nuestra competitividad industrial y por eso tenemos que responder. En primer lugar, con un marco financiero sólido y fuerte. No podemos aceptar que se reduzca el marco financiero plurianual que está planteando el Consejo actualmente, porque la política de cohesión no es un gasto que tiene que ajustarse cada vez que surgen nuevas prioridades, es una inversión estratégica europea a largo plazo que crea empleo, que fortalece nuestro mercado único y que garantiza que todas las regiones puedan contribuir a la prosperidad de Europa.
Y además, no debemos entender la política de cohesión como una lucha contra la competitividad. La política de cohesión ya invierte hoy en competitividad en uno de sus objetivos políticos y no habrá una Unión Europea competitiva si las regiones no son competitivas. En segundo lugar, las regiones tienen que estar en el centro de la toma de decisiones. No pueden ser meros receptores de fondos con políticas diseñadas desde Bruselas. Tienen que estar desde el inicio en la, en el diseño, la decisión, la asignación, la ejecución y la justificación de los fondos.
No pueden ser meros receptores y ejecutores. Y aquí le pido a la Comisión Europea que además respeten el papel de los legisladores. No le pidan a los Estados miembros unos planes nacionales de algo que todavía ni el Consejo ni el Parlamento ha conseguido legislar y está sobre el papel legislativo. Y en tercer lugar, debemos reconocer el papel esencial de ciudades y zonas rurales y por eso mi compañero y yo hemos, estamos estableciendo en el FEDER propuestas para asignar 13% para el desarrollo urbano sostenible, 10% para vivienda pública, 10% para inversiones no agrícolas en zonas rurales, porque las prioridades deben llegar a todas las zonas de la Unión Europea. Porque una Europa fuerte solo puede construirse a partir de regiones y de territorios fuertes y competitivos.
Oratore 16
Now the floor goes to S&D coordinator, Mr. Smet, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, I'm going to make three remarks. First of all, indeed we are for an historic moment, but I'm not sure that we are on the right side of history in the history of European integration. I'm a convinced European federalist and I think that the whole national regional partnership plans could be a very wrong idea and could be a very big step to a Europe of nations. And we all know what is happening in some member states, the mood over there, and it might be possible that your Commission is now laying the ground for a Europe of nations.
So there is a very big risk in that thing. I can see advantages, I've been myself minister, so I can understand the reasoning behind it, but there is a big, big danger in these NRPPs and so, yeah, maybe it's the wrong side of history. Second remark I would like to make is, and I already made it once to you, is when I hear the Commission talking about the implication of regions, you always use the right words, regional shack, shared management and all these things. And you remind, you sometimes think me like a husband, you know, who has a partner and he says I love you, I love you, and he gives you all these beautiful words, you know, but in his mind he's thinking about some, somebody else. And the somebody else here is centralization, it's we are going to take the power.
So I'm not so sure that this Commission is loving the regions and the cities. Yeah, by words, it's very clear. But are you really doing it by deeds?
So prove us your love to us. Third remark I would like to make to you is the right to stay. I think the terminology is not right. I understand what you mean with the right to stay, but if you say to people a right, they will think, ah, if it's not fulfilled, I go to court and I will get what I want to get. Nobody will go to court and win from the European Court that they have a right to stay in a region.
So basically what you want to say, I think, and we all want to say, you need the freedom to stay. You need the opportunity to stay. So I think that the terminology that is being used should be adapted to more freedom to stay. And it looks more like freedom to movement, but you have also the freedom to stay, and we want to give opportunities. And I think there is a big challenge over there too.
You know that politics, I don't have to tell you, it's a lot about expectations of management of expectations today. Politicians have always the tendency to promise a lot of things to people. We are going to do this and you will see, and at the end of the day it won't happen. So I'm not so sure that the right to stay will be there for everybody. So we have to be aware that this expectation of management, take care of that.
So I would prefer to say the freedom to stay. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Lovely intervention. I give the floor to RE-G Patriots for Europe coordinator, Mr. André Rougé.
André Rougé
Merci Monsieur le Président. Messieurs les Présidents, Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif, Mesdames et Messieurs les représentants des régions, chers collègues. Le décalage entre la réalité vécue par mon pays, la France, et le projet de CFP de Madame von der Leyen est plus que préoccupant. Ce projet de budget double quasiment celui en vigueur actuellement et obligerait la France, qui croule sous la dette, 3600 milliards d'euros pour mémoire, à un chèque annuel de 36 milliards d'euros contre 28 aujourd'hui. Le CFP 28-34 est une folie.
Une folie qui se nourrit des ambitions fédéralistes de la Présidente de la Commission et de sa volonté de s'arroger des compétences hors traités, la défense notamment. Folie financière parce que le délabrement de nos finances publiques ne nous permet pas cet effort. Folie conceptuelle parce que nous n'acceptons pas une hypothèse dans laquelle la politique agricole commune perdrait 20 % de ses crédits et la cohésion quelque 74 milliards d'euros. La nouvelle architecture budgétaire, véritable usine à gaz communautaire, va pénaliser la PAC, le POSEI, la politique des pêches et la politique de cohésion, relégués dans un vaste fonds fourre-tout. Les États arbitreront la ventilation de fonds en baisse de 191 milliards, tandis que la Commission se concentrera sur les matières nobles, diplomatie, intelligence artificielle, etc.
Le piège est évident. La PAC, le POSEI, les pêches, les politiques de cohésion vont devenir concurrentes entre elles autour d'une enveloppe financière déclinante. C'est particulièrement dangereux pour les RUP, plus éloignées, plus isolées, plus exposées et donc plus vulnérables que les régions continentales. Le 15 juillet, notre commission REGI a adopté mon rapport pour avis sur la PAC et le POSEI. J'y pose trois principes intangibles.
Sanctuariser la PAC et ne pas mélanger agriculture et cohésion. Maintenir dans le CFP 28-34 les montants prévus pour la PAC en euros constants au niveau de l'actuel CFP.
Sanctuariser le POSEI et maintenir en euros constants ses montants à un niveau au moins équivalent à celui de l'actuel budget. La négociation du CFP est déterminante. Nous y voyons la volonté de la présidente de la Commission de conclure un accord avant l'élection présidentielle française alors que rien ne l'y oblige. Si la candidate du mouvement politique auquel j'appartiens est élue présidente de la République française en mai, et elle l'a formellement répété hier, cet accord sera remis en cause. La France est un partenaire loyal de l'Union européenne, mais elle se doit de refuser d'endosser un budget européen qui va à l'encontre de ses réalités financières, des intérêts de ses agriculteurs, de ses pêcheurs, notamment ceux d'outre-mer et de la politique de cohésion.
Oratore 18
Kiitoksia puheenjohtajat ja arvoisa komissaari Fitto. Meidän on ehdottomasti tehtävä Euroopassa kaikkemme kilpailukyvyn ja turvallisuuden eteen. Tiedämme, että seuraavalla kaudella MFF-rahoitusta on entistä vähemmän jaossa. Olen itse ollut yli 30 vuotta paikallispoliitikko, aluepoliitikko ja vähän muuallakin, ja aina on säästetty. Vähemmällä rahalla on tehtävä tehokkaammin ja vaikuttavampaa politiikkaa.
Me tarvitsemme Eurooppaan vahvoja alueita, kriisinkestävyyttä ja reagointia hätätilanteissa, ja näillä rahoitusmenetelmillä toivon, että tullaan tulevaisuudessa tekemään. Haluan nähdä, että me luotetaan erilaisten alueiden kykyyn ottaa alueiden voimavarat käyttöön. Panostetaan siis niihin, jotka ovat jo tällä hetkellä todella hyviä. Digitalisaatio jossakin päin maailmaa, luonnonvarat, joita voidaan ottaa käyttöön, energiantuotanto. Tämä kaikki on niin kuin erilaisilla alueilla käytössä.
Joissakin päin matkailu on se, joka rokkaa tällä hetkellä. Panostetaan niihin tai maatalouteen. Komissaari Fitto, tykkään ajatuksesta siitä, että modernisoidaan koheesiopolitiikkaa, vastataan uusiin haasteisiin ja panostetaan niihin vahvuuksiin, joita meillä alueilla on. Se tarkoittaa myöskin koheesiopolitiikassa sitä, että on erilaisia tukialueita ja tukirahoitusta. Vakavasti ja pysyvistä haitoista kärsivät pohjoisten harvaan asuttujen alueiden NSPA-erityisrahoitus tulisi turvata myös jatkossa.
Ja tykkään myös siitä, että itärajastrategia ja Right to Stay, eli Freedom to Stay -ohjelma on otettu mukaan tulevaisuuden ohjelmiin. Se antaa toivoa elää, asua ja luoda elinvoimaa haastaville alueille. Lopuksi haluan todeta kumppanuudesta. Olen itse tai näen ainakin niin, että alueiden komitea on vahvasti mukana koheesiopolitiikan ja tulevan ohjelmakauden rakentamisessa, ja tämä yhteiskokous on yksi osoitus siitä.
Mutta omaa paikallista toimintaa en voi kehua, jos minulla on sitten oma tehtäväni potista paikallisia ottamaan alueet ja kunnat huomioon.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Give the floor, now I give the floor to REGI ECR coordinator, Mrs. Antonella Sberna.
Antonella Sberna
Buongiorno, grazie, grazie Presidente. Grazie Presidente Cordeiro, grazie Presidente Fitto per essere qua. È una settimana intensa, ci siamo incontrati in tante occasioni ed è importante anche in diversi contesti formali e informali poter riflettere su queste tematiche. Uno perché stiamo per affrontare tutti il bilancio e due perché nelle commissioni che rappresentiamo, soprattutto in Commissione REGI, ci confrontiamo sul futuro di come dare risposte ai nostri cittadini. Perché poi di fatto la politica di coesione, se è vero che è la politica che accorcia le distanze e crea futuro per le nostre comunità, deve poter dare queste risposte.
E diciamo sul piatto della bilancia ci sono varie riflessioni. Da una parte l'esigenza di flessibilità che è stata fatta già con la revisione della politica di coesione, quindi è stato un primo banco di prova. E dall'altra la semplificazione e quindi la questione del passaggio da tanti a pochi programmi, da piani nazionali e regionali. La battaglia che è stata fatta in questo anno da tutte le regioni. Vi riconosciamo un ruolo importante, ma anche noi da parte parlamentare abbiamo fatto la nostra parte.
Insomma col collega Omarjee abbiamo lavorato insieme anche grazie alle nostre deleghe da vicepresidenti per questo tema per poter fare in modo che i piani nazionali inizialmente proposti diventassero intanto piani nazionali e regionali. È chiaro che tutto questo si deve sostanziare da una parte con risorse adeguate a tutto questo e dall'altra mantenendo saldo alcuni principi che credo, mi pare addirittura di interpretare siano unanimemente condivisi, che la politica di coesione e la politica agricola non debbano essere penalizzate dal punto di vista economico e finanziario, semmai semplificate con le regole. E le strategie che in realtà la Commissione per il tramite del Commissario alla Coesione sta portando avanti credo che possano andare in questa direzione. E cioè la strategia il diritto a restare, quella delle città, quella delle isole e delle zone costiere. Tutto questo io credo vada nella direzione di riscrivere, semplificare, dare corpo a una legislazione che poi dovrà trovare rispondenza nel bilancio.
E credo che in tutto questo si stia facendo un lavoro un lavoro importante senza però, e lo dico in maniera convinta, mettere contro anche rispetto alla discussione sul bilancio la questione della coesione rispetto alla questione della competitività. Perché io credo che la coesione e la politica agricola siano precondizioni affinché i nostri territori, le nostre città, le nostre regioni siano competitivi. E quindi anche l'esercizio di responsabilità chiaramente che tutti dobbiamo fare, ognuno con la sua parte, ognuno con la sua visione, debba poter andare in questa direzione. E quindi l'invito è quello nella discussione del bilancio e nella riflessione che questa settimana europea delle città e delle regioni ci ha offerto di trovare veramente una quadra formalmente diciamo rispondente alle necessità alle quali andiamo incontro. Perché tutti rappresentiamo i territori, tutti arriviamo da città, tutti dobbiamo rispondere ai cittadini e il dibattito, la semplificazione e diciamo l'architettura che ci viene proposta, seppur con le sue criticità che tutti riconosciamo, probabilmente se interpretata e condivisa può avere una diciamo una rispondenza reale in un bilancio che chiaramente ci sfida perché è la prima volta che sarà fatto in questo modo e la congiuntura anche geopolitica ci impone responsabilità ma anche insomma una prospettiva.
Oratore 21
Thank you. Now Mr. Ortyl, coordinator of ECR in the COTER. You have the floor.
Oratore 26
Dziękuję bardzo panowie przewodniczący, szanowni państwo. Chciałbym bardzo serdecznie podziękować za zorganizowanie tego ważnego spotkania, a przede wszystkim chciałbym też podziękować przewodniczącemu Raffaele Fitto za to, że bierze udział w tym naszym posiedzeniu.
Bardzo doceniamy pana zaangażowanie na rzecz regionów i konsekwentne dążenie do bliskiej współpracy z naszym komitetem regionów. Myślę że wszyscy wiemy że te negocjacje w sprawie kolejnego budżetu no i patrząc na jego musimy patrzeć na to jak on będzie uproszczony jakie będą zwiększenia w wymiarze elastyczności zdolności do reagowania na nowe wyzwania. To jest też ważny parametr który my sprawdzamy jako szefowie regionów samorządowcy. Jednocześnie pilnie potrzebujemy ciągłości inwestycji i większych inwestycji na ten moment bezpieczeństwo obronność ochronę granic zewnętrznych czy naszych krajów czy także Unii Europejskiej. Nasze główne obawy dotyczą jednak roli polityki spójności oraz wspólnej polityki rolnej.
Przez cały czas trwania negocjacji nasze stanowisko było jasne. Obie te polityki muszą być są zakotwiczone w traktatach i powinny być silnym filarem budżetu i nie mogą być osłabiane. Widzimy taki pozytywny sygnał jakąś jaskółkę nadziei w dzisiejszej propozycji prezydencji irlandzkiej która przewiduje możliwość negocjacji władz regionalnych z komisją która jak gdyby pokazuje tą rolę regionów którą zresztą też my dostrzegamy jako członkowie komisji też dostrzega przewodniczący Fitto. I z punktu widzenia polityki spójności ta propozycja mogłaby być oczywiście lepsza no ale dobrze że nie jest znacznie gorsza tak można też trochę powiedzieć. No patrząc na przyszłość polityka spójności musi być właściwa dla regionów będąc patrząc na to jak to jest jakie to ma znaczenie dla przyszłych inicjatyw w tym do prawa do pozostania.
I dlatego strategia powinna zapewnić działania Unii Europejskiej na rzecz konkurencyjności przynosić korzyści wszystkim regionom nie tylko tym najsilniejszym. No i strategia również najlepiej powinna wykonywać synergię z innymi działaniami dotyczącymi konkretnych terytoriów. Infrastruktura podwójnego w tym regionów przygranicznych. Infrastruktura podwójnego zastosowania kosztuje oczywiście drożej. Nie chcę powiedzieć że na ten moment nikt nie wymyślił lepszego instrumentu niż polityka spójności a czas na eksperymentowanie jest oczywiście niezbyt właściwy.
Oratore 23
Thank you. Now I give the floor to REGI Greens coordinator Mr. Vladimir Prebilič.
Vladimir Prebilič
Well thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you today here. I will pick it up where my predecessor just stopped. And he I will quote him there was nothing better invented as the cohesion policy was. Let us look a little bit into the history.
1957 was the Treaty of Rome. So the community at that time economic community agreed that we should sign a new agreement and they came up with two policies that enabled in 40 years European Union. At that time was the community of cooperation but because of common agricultural policy and because of cohesion policy we started to feel that we are Europeans. And that worked for 50 years. And it's still working.
So message number one to all those people who thinks that cohesion is not important, cohesion brought us as we are today. Dismantling cohesion would mean a big step back in development of European Union. So this should not happen. For all those who are arguing that cohesion policy should give in quotation mark money for defense, true power of each and every one does not come from tanks, bombs, planes, grenades, but from cohesion and values that we share, and cohesion policy is the pillar for this. Second thing, we need to integrate partnership principle in the agreement.
Why? Because people, I'm meaning mayors, I was 14 years a mayor, are standing on the ground. They understand the needs of the people on the ground. So they should be listened and heard if we want to have a very successful cohesion policy. They will implement.
I read somewhere that 60 percent of all the European budget is implemented by local communities. So give them the opportunity for this kind of work in the future also. So this should be integrated. Number three, I'm happy today to hear and you will see eight political groups are sitting in within the Parliament. We argue on many things.
We cannot agree on many things. But today you see that we agree on one thing in particular: cohesion should not be diminished, should be working in the future and it should be helped for all sides as possible. And I would finish here with the message for the dear friend Commissioner Fitto, we are here today to back you up. Understand there are some frugal states saying well forget about that, you know. But no, you have here the audience who will support you in the Commission and we really have to stand firm and fast to change the commitments of the Council.
Maybe they don't understand, maybe they need some somebody to, you know, to clarify. We are here to help you in this way. So friends of cohesion are the true friends of the European Union. Thank you.
Oratore 25
Thank you. Now the floor goes to COTER European Alliance coordinator, Cosmina Pandele.
Cosmina Ramona PANDELE
Chairs, Executive Vice-President, thank you, and thank you for allowing me to speak today. We are discussing cohesion just as Europe's leaders are negotiating the budget for the period after 2027. Romania initiated together with 15 other member states the declaration of Friends of Cohesion, which calls for sufficient funding for this policy. I wholeheartedly support that effort. But I am here to speak about other half of the issue: who decides how the money is spent.
The Irish presidency negotiating box is a serious starting point. It protects funding for cohesion and agriculture from further cuts and the negotiation have been brought back part of the territorial dimension. But today cohesion has its own money and its own rules. And regions run their own programs. Under the new model, these guarantees are no longer mandatory.
A commune projects ends up competing for the same money with all of a member state's other priorities, from borders to security. Let me give you an example. In Berceni, the community where I'm a mayor, we have prepared almost 11 hectares of land for an industrial park in small plots so that other small companies can have a place too. The land is ready and we are now looking for funding. In a national plan, a project like this is too small to matter.
For us it is vital. It is jobs 10 minutes away from home, and the young people that are no longer forced to leave and have a better life in their own community, but also maybe it is important because it brings financial support for the local budget. I really believe in the freedom of movement. And I believe just as strongly that Europe must also give people the real freedom to stay at home. That is what cohesion does when it reach Europe's citizens.
And I have two questions. One will be what concrete guarantee will local and regional authorities have that they take part in drafting the partnership plans and not only in implementing them? And second, will there be clear allocations set in advance for territories so that the money also reach communes and small towns and not only the places where the administration is clearly strong? Thank you very much.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you now I give the floor to Mr. Vice-President of European Parliament, Mr. Younous Omarjee.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les co-présidents, cher Vice-Président exécutif. Plusieurs remarques. Premièrement, le budget de l'Union européenne va déterminer la place de l'Europe dans le monde, dans cette nouvelle géopolitique qui nous oblige plus que jamais à exister. La deuxième remarque que je veux formuler à l'adresse des membres de la commission REGI et du Comité des régions, c'est que nous ne sommes pas des commentateurs passifs, mais nous sommes des acteurs agissants et que les actions que nous avons menées au cours des dernières années et cette année ont été parfois marquées de résultats et aussi de résultats positifs. Le Conseil se réunit ces jours-ci et je note que dans la negobox irlandaise, pour le moment, la cohésion et l'agriculture sont les politiques qui prennent le moins le choc, du moins par rapport aux premières propositions de la présidence irlandaise.
Mais nous savons que les pays frugaux sont à l'attaque, que la bataille sera terrible et qu'il faudra atterrir avec un budget qui permette à la fois de satisfaire aux objectifs en matière de solidarité, en matière de compétitivité et en matière de sécurité. Voilà les trois grands pôles du budget. Mais lorsque je disais que notre action paye parfois, et le Vice-Président Fitto l'a rappelé, nous avons maintenu les trois catégories de régions. Je pense que c'est très important pour les régions les moins développées et c'est aussi très important pour les régions ultrapériphériques. Et je proposerai aux collègues dans la négociation du NRPP qu'on introduise des filets de sécurité supplémentaires, en particulier pour les régions ultrapériphériques.
Mais nous devons continuer à agir pour améliorer la proposition. La troisième remarque que je veux formuler, c'est concernant les propositions que vous avez mises sur la table. D'abord la proposition concernant les régions qui sont au contact de l'Ukraine et de la Russie. Là encore, je veux dire que c'est notre commission REGI qui a fait cette proposition, notamment au retour de la mission que nous avions faite en Finlande, en particulier en Carélie du Sud, où nous avons vu combien l'impact de la guerre avait eu, y compris dans des régions développées d'Europe, des impacts considérables et qu'il fallait le corriger.
Et je crois que c'est une avancée extrêmement importante que nous allons accomplir parce que la politique de cohésion va faire la démonstration qu'elle est bien sûr aux côtés des régions les moins développées, mais qu'au moment des crises, elle est aux côtés de l'ensemble des régions qui prennent le choc. Et je suis certain, Monsieur le Vice-Président, qu'au Conseil, cette proposition que vous faites pour les régions frontalières, et bien elle va permettre peut-être de parvenir à des soutiens beaucoup plus larges sur la défense de la politique de cohésion. En tout cas, c'est ce que je souhaite. Pour finir, et je terminerai là, vous avez parlé de déclin économique lorsque vous avez évoqué la proposition du droit à rester. C'est vrai.
Et le déclin économique est lié au déclin démographique également. Et nous avons eu l'occasion d'en discuter. Dans ce débat sur le droit à rester, nous devons évidemment tenir compte de la tragédie démographique qui existe aujourd'hui, en particulier dans les îles. Nous revenons de Madère, Madère 266 000 habitants, en 2100 150 000 habitants, peut-être même 90 000 habitants. Donc il faut combiner l'ensemble de ces dimensions.
Et je termine pour répondre à notre collègue Rougé, la France n'est pas n'importe quel pays dans la construction de l'Union européenne. La France a un devoir et nous avons tous un devoir dans la défense de la politique de cohésion, un devoir de solidarité. Et je souhaite que la France continue à assumer pleinement son rôle au sein de l'Union européenne. Merci beaucoup.
Oratore 28
Now the floor goes to the Greens coordinator at the COTER, the floor goes to Niina Ratilainen.
Niina Ratilainen
Thank you, President, distinguished members. The Irish presidency's negotiation box moves away from Commission proposal in several worrying areas. For example, compared with the Cyprus box, the EU facility is cut by 34.7%. This matters because its unity safety net and solidarity actions are precisely the instruments that regions need while facing floods, fires, agricultural shocks and other climate-related emergencies that become more more severe. Cutting solidarity and crisis response capacity while climate risks are accelerating is neither fiscal prudence nor simplification.
It shifts the costs of crises onto regional and local budgets. Secondly, maintaining the climate targets is very welcome, but targets without credible rules can become green accounting. The Irish box retains 35% MFF-wide climate and environmental target, the 43% target for the NRRP fund and the do no significant harm principle. These elements must remain non-negotiable in the future as well. However, their value depends on robust coefficients, transparent tracking and narrowly defined exemptions.
Investments with limited or harmful environment effects must not receive inflated climate coefficients. The NRRP architecture still contains major climate and territorial governance gaps. The Irish box allows regional authorities to negotiate, obviously with the Commission, and says that plans should safeguard the role of regions, but it does not guarantee meaningful multi-level governance.
Regional and territorial chapters remain optional and there is still no mandatory strategic environmental assessment of each national plan. NRRPs should contain binding regional chapters, undergo territorial and environmental impact assessments and demonstrate coexistence with national energy and climate plans, nature restoration plans and obviously social climate plans. Otherwise, national governments will be able to select only the objectives they consider relevant, creating wide differences in climate ambition and territorial fairness across the Union. And on the right to stay, the ARIS box cuts heading two by 12.8% compared to the Commission proposal, including a 14% cut to the Connecting Europe Facility. This is not a good proposal regarding on right to stay and greening Europe.
Colleague Pascal talked about love. I've been thinking about partnership lately. I know that a good equal partnership is built on mutual respect, trust, honest communication, equal efforts and support between the partners. Both partners need to feel valued, heard, safe and free to be themselves. This is what I feel that partnership should be like and lately I've been thinking to myself whether we think that the partnership is the same.
But this is the message that we share today and it's the message of European cities and regions. Also coming from the frugal regions and cities, this is our message and we also support you, Commissioner Fitto, with your work. Thank you so much.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich werde ausnahmsweise mal Deutsch sprechen, weil wir hier die Vielfalt der Regionen und die Vielfalt Europas feiern. Ich spreche sonst immer Englisch, aber jetzt hier in dem Rahmen Deutsch. Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Vielen Dank auch, Herr Vorsitzender Cordeiro, und vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar Fitto, dass Sie uns heute hier die Ehre erweisen.
Das bedeutet uns sehr viel. Ich möchte zuerst meinem Kollegen Rougé danken für seine Bemerkung, dass der mittelfristige Finanzrahmen natürlich die Nettozahler am meisten belastet. Und neben Frankreich ist ja bekanntlicherweise auch mein Heimatland Deutschland dabei, am meisten einzuzahlen. Wir profitieren durchaus auch davon, aber ich denke, dass meine Regierung heute alles dafür tun wird, dass die Erhöhung nicht so stark ausfällt, wie sich das die Ratspräsidentschaft ausgedacht hat. Denn es geht nicht darum, mehr Geld zu haben, sondern es geht darum, das Geld besser einzusetzen, besser zu verwenden und auch besser zu kontrollieren.
Denn die Fehlallokationen sind im Bereich der Kohäsionspolitik besonders hoch. Es gibt kein Ressort, wo Fehlallokationen so hoch sind wie im Bereich der Kohäsionspolitik. Und wer sollte dort besser sein, geeignet sein, das zu kontrollieren als die regionalen Körperschaften, Gebietskörperschaften. Und ich bin Ihnen, Herr Cordeiro, sehr dankbar dafür, dass Sie hervorgehoben haben, dass diese Gebietskörperschaften nicht an die Seite gedrängt werden dürfen. Denn sie sind dafür verantwortlich, die besten Lösungen für die Bürger in den Regionen zu finden, insbesondere was die Infrastruktur betrifft.
Leider ist meine geschätzte Kollegin Frau Sberna gegangen, aber wir haben zusammen hier einen hervorragenden Bericht zum Thema CEF, also Connecting Europe Facility, gemacht. Und da hat man auch gesehen, dass wir über die Partei- und Fraktionsgrenzen hinweg an einem Strang ziehen. Ja, die Verbindung der Regionen und der Mitgliedstaaten durch eine sehr gute Infrastruktur ist unser aller Anliegen.
Es betrifft auch die Digitalisierung natürlich und es betrifft auch das sogenannte Right to Stay oder Liberty to Stay oder Opportunity to Stay, whatever you want to call it. I think Liberty is better than Freedom in this respect. Und Kommissar Fitto weiß seit letzter Woche, seit meiner Rede im Parlament, dass ich aus einer Region mit Insel und Küsten komme. Und ich bin sehr dankbar, dass wir uns auch dieses Themas annehmen, weil in meiner Region, ich komme aus Norddeutschland, ist sehr viel Geld liegen geblieben, weil die Antragstellung zu komplex war. Und deswegen bin ich sehr dankbar dem Kommissar, dass jetzt die Programme, die Zahl der Programme reduziert wird.
Das ist sehr gut. Aber die Komplexität der Antragstellung und die Doppelung in den Programmen muss auch gelöst werden, denn sonst geht das Geld einfach verloren oder bleibt liegen. Lassen Sie mich noch ein letztes Wort zur NLPP sagen. Ich werde keine fünf Minuten sprechen wie manche meiner Vorredner. NLPP ist eine super eine super Konstruktion.
Aber wir, auch als inzwischen stärkste Partei in Deutschland, die ich hier auch repräsentiere, werden dafür sorgen, dass unsere Landwirte nicht noch mehr eingeschränkt werden, weil weil sie schon unter großen Umweltauflagen und der sogenannten Klimapolitik ächzen. Und das kann nicht sein, dass der Landwirt jetzt im Rahmen der NLPP noch weniger Geld hat als bisher. Das wär's. Danke schön.
Dragoş Benea
So we're going directly to Q&A section, but I remember at 10:20 minutes I give the floor to Mr. Executive Vice-President Mr. Fitto for the final remarks. So in four minutes I give the floor to Mr. Fitto. Mr. Struk from the EPP group in the COTER commission, are you here? Yes. Please go ahead.
Fabien STRUK
Szanowny panie komisarzu, szanowny panie przewodniczący, szanowni parlamentarzyści, przedstawiciele Komisji Europejskiej. Bardzo dziękuję za możliwość zabrania głosu w dzisiejszej dyskusji w obecności tak znamienitego gremium. Panie komisarzu, proszę przyjąć moje podziękowania i wyrazy uznania za wprowadzenie do polityki spójności priorytetów i działań związanych z bezpieczeństwem i odpornością. Doceniam też podjęty przez Komisję Europejską wysiłek na rzecz wypracowania szczególnych zasad wsparcia dla wschodnich regionów przygranicznych, w tym w zakresie regionalnej pomocy państwa i map regionalnych na lata 28-34. Mój region wyraźnie odczuwa skutki wojny za wschodnią granicą i wynikających z niej napięć geopolitycznych.
Pierre STRUK
Raport Banku Gospodarstwa Krajowego z ubiegłego roku zatytułowany Samorządy wobec współczesnych zagrożeń, odporność polskich miast i gmin wskazuje region pomorski jako obszar zagrożony w sposób analogiczny jak regiony tak zwanej Polski Wschodniej, czyli warmińsko-mazurskie, podlaskie, lubelskie czy też podkarpackie. Czynniki związane między innymi z ulokowaniem ważnych inwestycji infrastrukturalnych sprawiają, że najbardziej podatne na zagrożenia są duże miasta, wśród nich jest Gdańsk, położony dodatkowo blisko wrogiej granicy z obwodem królewieckim Federacji Rosyjskiej. Bardzo bym prosił, żeby w politykach pan komisarz również uwzględnił ten fakt.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Thank you. I give the floor to Mr. Sergio Gonçalves for one minute maximum. Mr. Gonçalves and after Mrs. Sabrina Repp.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Thank you, Chair. Caro amigo Presidente Vasco Cordeiro, Senhor Vice-Presidente Executivo Fito, para as regiões ultraperiféricas, um dos maiores desafios para a coesão é também uma das suas maiores mais-valias: o talento das pessoas que lá vivem.
Quando os nossos jovens qualificados saem por falta de oportunidades, não perdemos apenas população, perdemos a capacidade de inovar, de criar empresas, de desenvolver novas atividades económicas. Nas RUP não há competitividade sem coesão. Investir em conectividade, em serviços, em infraestruturas essenciais e na redução de sobrecustos é investir em competitividade e criar condições para que o direito a ficar seja uma escolha real. Mas isso exige políticas verdadeiramente territoriais, definidas e implementadas por quem conhece as necessidades e o potencial de cada região. O próprio vice-presidente Fitto referiu na sua intervenção inicial que soluções feitas à medida dos territórios como um dos quatro pilares da coesão.
É por isso que no próximo quadro financeiro plurianual, os capítulos regionais para as regiões ultraperiféricas têm de ser obrigatórios e as autoridades regionais devem participar na definição dos seus programas. Só assim podemos assegurar que as regiões terão voz na definição das suas prioridades. Muito obrigado.
Isabelle BOUDINEAU
Merci beaucoup. Moi j'ai un constat dans mon pays et dans ma région la Nouvelle-Aquitaine, c'est que la nouvelle architecture que la Commission a proposée, au lieu de sécuriser le budget de la cohésion, l'a affaibli. Cela introduit une concurrence entre la PAC et la cohésion et comme notre gouvernement souhaite qu'il y ait exactement la même somme sur la PAC, ça veut dire que la cohésion est la variable d'ajustement. Or la cohésion, cela a été dit, c'est vraiment une compétitivité qualitative qui crée de l'emploi sur les territoires, qui préserve des petites entreprises, qui préserve la qualité de la formation avec nos centres de formation et d'apprentissage. Donc on est vraiment en train de détruire une politique qui luttait contre les inégalités territoriales pour des choix que cette architecture et ce PPNR en mettant le mot de national en avant a autorisé.
Et vraiment je trouve que c'est une catastrophe et je terminerai sur le fait que vous nous demandez de faire du multi-level, du partenariat alors que nous n'avons plus vraiment le temps de le faire vu qu'on n'a toujours pas les budgets pour aller devant nos collègues et leur dire quelle stratégie avec quel budget.
Sabrina Repp
Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank Herr Fitto, dass Sie hier sind. Ich habe ganz konkrete Fragen. Zunächst haben Sie gesagt, dass für Sie Kohäsion long-term investments sind. Ja, das stimmt, aber wie rechtfertigen Sie gleichzeitig die Kürzungen, die damit jetzt einhergehen?
Es gibt Regionen, die verlieren die Hälfte der Kohäsionsmittel, die eigentlich ankommen sollten. Das steht für mich in keinem Verhältnis, wenn wir tatsächlich langfristige Herausforderungen angehen sollen. Gleichzeitig haben Sie sehr deutlich gemacht, wie wichtig Ihnen die Regionen sind. Daher die ganz konkrete Frage: Werden Sie sich in den Trilogen dafür einsetzen, dass die Regionen tatsächlich Mitsprache erhalten? Momentan ist es nämlich so, dass vor allem wir als Europäisches Parlament die Rechte der Regionen einfordern müssen.
Und das ist nicht so, dass die Kommission die ganze Zeit für die Regionen kämpft. Vielleicht können Sie dazu noch mal etwas sagen. Und zum Right to Stay ist mir noch mal wichtig zu sagen: Es ist gut, verschiedene Prinzipien zu haben, aber wir müssen sie doch unterlegen. Nur wenn wir konkrete Handlung, konkretes Geld haben, um das Right to Stay zu implementieren, dann kommen wir da auch voran. Also welche konkreten Maßnahmen und Gelder ergreifen Sie, um das Right to Stay tatsächlich umzusetzen?
Vielen Dank.
Raffaele Fitto
Yes, thank you. Thank you for your contributions. I would like to start thanking all of you for the proposals, for the contributions. And I would like also to start from one important: I share your declaration of love for cohesion policy. My life is connected to cohesion policy.
I had in the past always the role connected to cohesion policy. I was member of the Committee of Regions as you know, I was member of this committee in the European Parliament and also in my role in Italy I was president of the regions and representative of the local council and also member of the national government with the responsibility of cohesion policy.
And I can say that is a very important point for us. But I try to explain my position about this because for the first moment in this committee, if you remember, I was clear about one need from my in my opinion, to have the right approach because if we want to defend, to relaunch cohesion policy, we have to adapt cohesion policy at the new priorities. It is impossible to say that we want to keep the cohesion policy in the same way that we had in the past. I ask to you to have a new step in this way because if we want to work together and if we want to strength the role of cohesion policy, we have to go in the right direction. And I would like also to underline one point.
Nobody is dismantling cohesion policy because the message that we have to do is different, not only for the statement, but also for the the position, the proposal of the European Commission. First point is the dimension of budget. As you know, we now took note of the revised negotiation box and we will have to wait, of course, for the leaders' meeting this week. As you know, is a very complex work, as you said, and is not in a responsibility of the European Commission. What I can say is that the proposal of the European Commission is very ambitious.
And we work to confirm this approach. And we will see in the next steps the results starting from the next for this council. Second point is the role of the regions and the local authorities. Well, I think that is very important to clarify the effort that we are doing to simplify cohesion policy. I understand the fact that there are some negative position about the national plan, but I would like to underline the fact that is not national plan.
We have the national and regional partnership plans. Is not a detail. Is a concrete question. And we if we read well the point that we have inside the regulation of the national regional partnership plan, we can find the very strong clear answers about this because we have several articles where we design clearly the role of the regions. Yes, we have to to work to strength this part.
I full agree about this. We have to achieve the result also about the role of the regions, for example, working to understand how is possible to have inside the national regional partnership plans this role. But we have different situation in in Europe, as you know, because we have a group of member states where the regions are very strong, where the regions have a constitutional powers, where the regions now are responsible of the programs, where the region have many competence. And we have another group of member states, also for the dimensions, where the role of the regions is very different. And we have to adapt also the design of the national regional partnership plan speaking and building and working with the member states, with the regions, with the cities in this direction.
And the effort that we are doing to give the right tools in this way is the work about the strategies. I mentioned before the work that we are doing. We have for the first time the European agenda for the cities. Is a good news? Yes, I think yes.
And this proposal was a proposal of the European Commission. Second, we are working for several specificities. For the first time we face the new approach for the eastern border regions. This is another important news because eastern border region is a new needs that we have in the last years. And the work that we are doing in this way is another important work because we are designing a vision for these territories to give the right solutions also in these territories.
We have for the first time, as Younous knows very well, the strategy for islands because we have worked together in this committee in the last mandate to approve in the plenary the proposal in the European Parliament, the proposal for the first time to have this important strategy. And now we have the strategy for islands and for the outermost regions. And now we are working also for the strategy for the right to stay. I know that we have different approach, freedom, right to stay, but the concept is very clear because we want to go in the same direction. Now we have in Europe these two different situations because under the very problematic and challenging, very problematic and challenge about the demographic crisis, we have two different points.
One is the overpopulation of the urban areas and the cities with the new needs, housing, transport, mobility. And we are demonstrating that with the work that we are doing, for example, with the midterm review, we are adapting the cohesion policy to these new priorities. And the second, the opposite, is the depopulation of the internal, rural, mountains, sparsely populated areas, islands, etc. We have different specificities. Our goal is to create the condition to give these tools because we will present the strategy for the right to stay in January to have these strategies as tools for the preparation and the design of the next national regional partnership plans.
This could be an important effort to show how is possible to adapt the national regional partnership plans starting from the structure of the budget because we have inside the regulation many articles where we enter also in the specificities like outermost because we have this, like eastern border because we have this inside the regulation. And the regulation of the national regional plans is an important base to go in this way. We have to strength, we have to work, yes, but my personal suggestions, knowing very well this policy, that we have to give the right approach. The right approach is to ask clearly to have this dimension inside the national regional partnership plan, that we can work to show how is important the role of the regions, the role of the cities and also the approach designing about the specificities that we have in each territory. This is the approach that we have to have.
And I believe that to achieve this important result, we have to continue to work as we did until now in this committee of the European Parliament, with the Committee of Regions, because we have the common approach. We have the common objective and we have to continuous to work in this direction.
I believe that it is not a easy perspective because we have to start from the one other point. The world is changing. It is impossible to say that we want to keep the same policies that we had in the past. We have to change also this approach. And we have also to can imagine how is possible to adapt better these policies.
And the work that I mentioned in my introduction speech, but I mention always the point about the midterm review of cohesion policy, because was a very clear message for the results and for the method. I would like to underline the method because for the midterm review, we started speaking with the member states, with the regions, with this committee, with the Committee of Regions, and we shared all together the new priorities. And the new priorities confirmed that we decided the new priorities that show how is important to keep the long-term investment, because housing, because water, because energy, because competitiveness demonstrate clearly that these new priorities go in this direction. And defense is a new approach that we had. But I would like also to underline the fact that when we spoke for the first time in these meetings about the opportunity or the possibilities to use the resources of cohesion for defense, we had a big reactions against.
But we gave, this is the method, the voluntary basis to the member states. And we had the request about the possibility to move the resources for defense. Why? Because we gave an important possibility with the dual use of resources, first of all. And second, we had the request from the member states where this topic is fundamental now, because the request we received were request from the Baltics, from the Finland, from the Poland, etc.
And we have to adapt our policy to this new situation. Because for example, I visited the Easter border regions before to prepare the strategy. I saw directly on the ground the situation. And we have there, in those regions, the problems of defense and security, yes. But we have a big problem about cohesion of these territories, about depopulation of these territories.
And we have to have the capacity to adapt our programs and our policies to these new priorities. This is our effort. I am here. I am open to work with you. I know that the work that we are doing in this committee, in this house, for this topic are fundamental and also the same approach for the Committee of Regions, because I believe that it is very important to take on board in this work the Committee of Regions because it will be fundamental.
And if we work together, all together in this direction, we can achieve this result. My availability is full. I am here to give this message.
And I think that with your contributions, with your approach, with your support, we can go in the right direction to strength cohesion policy, adapting this policy at the new priorities. I please, I I ask to you to have this approach, to imagine how is possible to put your worries, and I I understand very well your worries, but to transform your worries in proposal, to have a constructive approach and to understand how is possible in the structure of the new budget for the future, for the next MFF, to put the points that can guarantee the the possible perspective of the local authorities, of the regions and to strength cohesion policy. This is my personal idea and I think that if we work together in this way, we can give the right possibilities also for the future. Thank you, dear chairs, and thank you all of you.
Oratore 50
Ladies and gentlemen, please! We still have some work to do. I'm speaking only for the COTER members. The MEPs can do as they please. Thank you so much for your understanding, Chair.
Dragoş Benea
Yeah, we can continue with Q&A section and I give the floor to Mrs. Rosa Serrano from S&D if she wants to take the floor.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Muchas gracias, presidente. Esta semana es una oportunidad para acercar las instituciones europeas a nuestros territorios y escuchar a quienes mejor conocen sus necesidades. Precisamente son ellos, ¿no?, los representantes locales y regionales los que nos trasladan su preocupación por el futuro de la política de cohesión. Y es que ahora estamos decidiendo qué Europa queremos construir. Competitividad, seguridad y defensa son presentadas como prioridades estratégicas modernas, relegando la cohesión al pasado, y es un tremendo error.
La cohesión y la competitividad no son objetivos opuestos, son dos caras de la misma moneda. Queremos una Europa que haga frente a las necesidades de nuestros pueblos y de nuestras ciudades, que tengan inversión, que apoye a nuestras pymes y que preserve instrumentos como el FIDER, el FEDER y el Leader que conviertan las prioridades europeas en inversiones y en oportunidades concretas sobre el terreno.
Y el artículo 174 lo dice muy claro, nos marca el camino. Necesitamos un presupuesto a la altura que garantice el futuro de nuestras regiones, apostando por el derecho de nuestros ciudadanos a quedarse en el lugar al que llaman hogar. Porque construir Europa queremos que sea, pero que lo hagamos de una manera más fuerte, que sea más competitiva y que empiece por no dejar atrás a ninguno de nuestros territorios. Gracias.
Oratore 45
Thank you. Member Nanette Maupertuis, you have the floor for one minute.
Marie-Antoinette MAUPERTUIS
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Alors bien évidemment, nous sommes tous très conscients des défis du moment. Nous l'avons dit tout au long de la semaine des villes et des régions. Je crois que personne n'est opposé à l'idée qu'une politique de cohésion soit une politique d'investissement. Mais il faut s'entendre sur la notion d'investissement.
Et nous l'avons dit hier encore devant le commissaire Fito lors du sommet de haut niveau, de l'événement de haut niveau. Est-ce que ce sont des investissements matériels, immatériels, dans la recherche, dans la technologie, pour qui, pour quel territoire et comment ? Et deuxième point, il faut que les régions en restent pleinement décideurs des investissements qu'elles doivent réaliser. Elles ne doivent pas être simplement consultées dans le cadre des plans nationaux, mais elles doivent définir réellement quels investissements elles doivent effectuer pour leurs populations. Et je crois que c'est tout simplement, comme vous le disiez tout à l'heure, Monsieur le Président, la nécessité d'appliquer le principe de subsidiarité.
Enfin, en tant que responsables politiques européens les uns et les autres et engagés depuis plus de deux ans dans cette réforme, nous devons prendre nos responsabilités aujourd'hui en matière de politique de cohésion comme de MFF sans, je pense, se laisser polluer par les conjonctures électorales nationales, que ce soit en France ou ailleurs. Merci.
Fidias Panayiotou
Hello guys, welcome. Why in this committee we are fighting sometimes if we should give more money to defense, to cohesion policy, and why not to kill two birds with one stone? For example, in my country, Cyprus, we are very vulnerable in defense and in the electricity grids. So if we get hit and they throw two bombs at us, we're going to go back to the Stone Age. So we can encourage a lot of solar panels and battery with cohesion policy.
And if in every house we put a battery and solar panels, this will solve also defense and strategic problems as well. So I think this is a good strategy to go forward as well for other countries, not only Cyprus. So thank you so much. I love you all.
Sari Rautio
Thank you so much. I will speak in Finnish since it's possible, apparently. Me jotka puolustamme koheesiopolitiikkaa, niin meidän täytyy ollakin tehdä yhdessä. Ja kuten edellinen puhuja totesi, rakastamme toisiamme, ehkä se on vahvasti sanottu, mutta meidän täytyy työskennellä yhdessä. Sama viesti, aivan kuten komissaari totesi.
Ja koheesiopolitiikka on totta vie investointipolitiikkaa. Monessa pöydässä ja esimerkiksi Suomessa, mistä tulen, niin näyttää olevan vähän niin, että tuo sana koheesio ärsyttää. Eli se on kummallista, kun joskus sanoillakin on merkitystä. Eli tämä kaksoiskäyttö ja se, että mitä oikeasti koheesio tarkoittaa.
Se tarkoittaa sitä, että me investoimme kilpailukykyymme, investoimme turvallisuuteemme, investoimme siihen Euroopan hyvään yhteiseen tulevaisuuteen. Keskeinen viesti meiltä pitäisi olla myös tuo aikataulun pitävyys. Maanviljelijät, kaupunkilaiset, ihmiset, yritykset eivät odota. Me tarvitsemme nopeasti sen ison ja tarpeeksi suuren budjetin ja sitten pannaan toimeksi. Ei maailma ulkopuolella odota meitä.
Kiitos.
Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO
Thank you. I must confess that after the intervention from our friend from Cyprus and also from Pascal Smet, the conclusion is obvious: this has been a lovely meeting. Louvega, vous avez la parole pour une minute.
Louvega
Merci, Président. Alors, en Guyane, on dit "raï chien, di sou dan blan". Cela veut dire : même lorsqu'on est en désaccord, il faut reconnaître ce qui est bien fait. Alors, c'est dommage que le vice-président exécutif soit parti puisque je voulais lui adresser des remerciements, mais vu qu'on a le vice-président du Parlement européen au margi, je veux lui adresser à lui des remerciements pour le travail qui est en train d'être fait pour l'Omnibus, qui est un vrai premier pas pour les régions ultrapériphériques. Mais on ne peut pas d'un côté enclencher une nouvelle dynamique avec une nouvelle stratégie avec ce texte et de l'autre côté avoir les difficultés qu'on connaît sur la politique de cohésion.
La politique de cohésion, c'est, vous le disiez, la compétitivité, mais c'est censé être ce qui nous permet de converger les niveaux de vie. En Guyane, on n'est plus dans une dynamique de convergence. En dix ans, le niveau de vie moyen a décroché de quinze points de la moyenne nationale. C'est ça la réalité. La politique de cohésion, c'est une vraie bouée de sauvetage pour énormément de nos territoires et de plus en plus de nos territoires.
Oratore 56
Thank you so much. Member Kieran McCarthy, you have the floor for one minute.
Kieran McCarthy
Yeah, thanks, Mr. President. Can I welcome our annual exchange? I think for me, I'm of the firm view that the focus needs to remain on how practically the regions and the cities actually will access funding in the future. At this moment in time, the managing authorities are doing really, really important and fantastic work. The future is very much, it looks like in the proposals, that it's going to be dependent on your political relationship with central government at a local level.
I'm the rapporteur on the EU Agenda for Cities, and I've heard this agenda being spoken about a lot this morning. It is very welcome, but it's very general in its detail when you actually dig into it. It needs clearer implementation arrangements, measurable objectives, systematic territorial impact assessments, and it needs stronger urban funding. When you dig into some of these pillars and paradigms, they seem very empty. And there's one thing saying that we implement, we've drawn them up, but how are local communities on the ground going to access them and actually use them?
So the cities and the regions, the cities in particular, need practical support. Thanks.
Oratore 52
Thank you. From the COTER side, I don't have any other request for the floor, so I thank our members and Chair, should we conclude?
Dragoş Benea
Yes, thank you. Dear Chair Cordeiro, dear colleagues, the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions have different roles but a common goal: a stronger Europe built together with its regions, not without them. Let us therefore continue working together to ensure that cohesion policy remains a pillar of European solidarity and a driver of our competitiveness. Chair Cordeiro, dear colleagues, thank you for this discussion and for our shared commitment. I look forward to continuing our cooperation.
Finally, and my thanks to the interpreters for their support. Thank you very much.
Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO
Thank you so much. On behalf also of the COTER commission, I would like to thank the REGI committee for their hospitality, for the possibility of this meeting. Also to praise both the secretariat of the REGI committee and of the COTER commission for their work and for making this possible. To thank all the members for being here, both from REGI and COTER. To thank the interpreters for their work.
And let's hope that we are able to build on the common ground that slowly we've been reaching, but especially, pardon me, let's have a very practical approach at this stage. There are concrete proposals on the table. From our side, for example, and specifically in the NRRPs, we have the multi-level assessment, we have the subsidiarity clause. Those are concrete proposals that transfer for the reality of the law what has been talked here today to foster the role of regions and cities in the next MFF. Dear Chair Benea, next meeting is on us, I think, on the COTER side.