What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

46. Underlines the importance of more sustainable mobility solutions throughout the EU territories, such as the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy; is of the position that smart and sustainable mobility solutions should be prioritised for EU funding;

47. Invites the Commission and the Member States to endeavour to ensure that all regions in the EU have access to high-speed broadband so that they are placed on an even footing to achieve the digital transition;

48. Stresses the need to encourage the involvement of the private sector alongside the public sector for investments in sustainable development; underlines, in this regard, the role SMEs can play in innovation; calls on the Member States and the Commission to propose measures to enhance the uptake of ready-for-market innovations by SMEs;

49. Calls for better access to funding for local and regional authorities, and also for cross-border and less-developed regions, to enable investments in the local and regional energy transition, including energy efficiency, decentralised distribution of energy and a strong focus on renewable energy and a sustainable circular economy;

50. Is convinced, considering the structural changes linked to the twin green and digital transitions, and their uneven economic and social impact on EU regions, that the principle of just transition, with no territory and no one left behind, should guide the next programming period of cohesion policy;

51. Recognises the importance of giving special attention to the regions affected by the industrial transition; welcomes, in this sense, the Commission’s efforts to address this issue with the Just Transition Fund, the first pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism; calls on the Commission to draw lessons from the implementation of this fund and to further clarify its objectives;

52. Calls for continued financing for the just transition, which should be fully integrated into the Common Provisions Regulation and endowed with adequate financial means to be set up for the post-2027 programming period, and for the principles of shared management and partnership to be applied; takes the view that this expansion of the Just Transition Fund should focus on the appropriate NUTS (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) level, take into account regional specificities, have a wider scope than the present Just Transition Fund, and be designed in such a way as to allow for prompt responses to newly arising challenges across various sectors and industries; calls for this new generation of financing to distinguish between climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses that a share of funding should be devoted to the socially just transition and to reducing the Union’s carbon footprint;

53. Calls for a dedicated policy objective towards tackling social inequalities to be maintained, as regional convergence has slowed down and new drivers of inequalities have appeared;

54. Stresses the crucial role that cohesion investments in high-quality public services play in building social resilience and coping with economic, health and social crises;

55. Underlines that cohesion policy’s scope of support includes the integration and inclusion of more than 3 million people who are at risk of social exclusion, including support to 600 000 people from marginalised groups, such as Roma, living in less-developed EU regions in particular; deplores the unwillingness of local governments of certain Member States to effectively use cohesion policy funds to ensure that these people have access to quality services, such as water and decent living conditions; urges the Member States to address these most pressing issues that will significantly contribute to reducing regional disparities;

56. Draws attention to the difficult situation of regions sharing a border with Russia and Belarus after the suspension of cooperation following the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine; calls on the Commission to closely work with the affected Member States to find sustainable solutions in order to address the social and economic challenges in these regions;

58. Recalls that the EAFRD is currently linked to the cohesion policy framework, and that it should be further associated with the Common Provisions Regulation, which is needed to fully develop rural regions; emphasises the need to further streamline the funds, including the EAFRD, in regional development, as it could ensure the achievement of synergies and stronger rural-urban partnerships for investments in rural areas beyond agriculture; insists that the EAFRD should be managed regionally or with decisive regional and local participation, placing greater emphasis than before on structural policy measures in sparsely populated areas;

59. Insists on the need to implement a rural proofing mechanism to assess the impact of EU legislative initiatives on rural areas;

60. Points out that any future Union enlargement will have repercussions on the level of cohesion within the Union; points out that it will likely affect the current classification of the different regions, given that the average GDP per capita will fall significantly, as a consequence of the statistical effect;

61. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing a new regulation for the post-2027 cohesion framework to ensure that cohesion policy is equipped to continue to support all regions and that any unfavourable consequences on the regions, caused by a statistical effect on cohesion policy eligibility, can be duly addressed; calls on the Commission, in addition, to include in its assessment an estimate of the additional needs for cross-border cooperation that an enlargement might entail; calls for consultation and structured work between the Commission and Parliament on these matters before a new legislative proposal is brought forward; calls for an enlargement-ready cohesion policy by 2030 at the latest;

62. Underlines that the existing cohesion policy budget focuses on convergence objectives; underlines that, in the case of Ukraine, the cohesion policy budget cannot and must not cater for the expected financial demands of reconstruction; stresses that any reconstruction objectives should be achieved through distinct financing mechanisms, outside the scope of the MFF, through direct budgetary contributions from Member States, the private sector and external resources;

63. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility that public cohesion policy spending by Member States and regional and local authorities under the ESI Funds should not be considered national or equivalent structural expenditure as defined in the new economic governance rules, especially if they do not deviate from the fulfilment of the Paris Agreement objectives;

64. Underlines the need to improve the relationship between cohesion policy and EU economic governance, while avoiding a punitive approach; stresses that the European Semester should comply with cohesion policy objectives as laid down in Articles 174 and 175 TFEU and the European Pillar of Social Rights; calls for the participation of the regions in the fulfilment of the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) and for a stronger territorial approach; calls for the concept of macroeconomic conditionality to be reconsidered and for the possibility of replacing this concept with new forms of conditionality to be explored so as to better reflect the new challenges that lie ahead of us;

65. Recalls the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle, introduced by the 8th Cohesion Report, meaning that no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities; calls for a stronger integration of this principle as a cross-cutting principle in all EU policies, so that they support the objectives of social, economic and territorial cohesion, as set out in Articles 3 and 174 TFEU; insists that promoting cohesion should also be seen as a way of fostering solidarity and mutual support among Member States and their regions;

66. Calls on the Commission to strengthen and develop this principle as part of the European Semester and to involve local and regional authorities at all stages of the procedures linked to the European Semester and its CSRs;

67. Strongly believes in the importance of the horizontal principles of multilevel governance and partnership, which should remain guiding principles of cohesion policy post-2027;

68. Calls on the Commission, the Member States, regions and local authorities to rigorously and effectively apply the multilevel governance principle;

69. Highlights the importance of upholding the partnership principle in all programming, implementation and monitoring of EU cohesion policy, and of establishing strong cooperation between regional and local authorities, non-governmental organisations and stakeholders; calls for the partnership principle to remain binding and asks for its inclusion in the European Semester; calls on the Commission and the European Court of Auditors to scrupulously conduct follow-ups, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;

71. Recalls that, in the 2021-2027 cohesion policy framework, gender equality and a gender perspective are included and promoted throughout all stages of the process of preparing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating cohesion programmes; highlights, furthermore, the specific role of women, in particular in remote and rural areas, as they are major players in civil society and sustainable economic growth; notes, however, at the same time, that they often face difficulties in accessing the labour market, public services, healthcare, childcare and equal pay;

72. Highlights, furthermore, the particular importance of youth mainstreaming in cohesion policy;

73. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make further efforts towards advancing the realisation of children’s rights by using ESF+ to support effective interventions that contribute to this goal;

74. Calls for the communication and visibility of the programmes and EU-funded projects to be further strengthened across the Member States, by defining their objectives, target audiences, communication channels, social media outreach, planned budget and relevant indicators for monitoring and evaluation;

Regional and local focus

75. Calls for climate adaptation and disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure sustainable investments in local and regional infrastructure and risk management in less-developed urban and rural areas, including border regions, islands and the outermost regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on risk reduction and preparedness for a broad spectrum of disasters (climate-related, geological, health-related, human-made); believes that this should include a strong focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation to help local and regional authorities to better manage risk and prepare to respond to the local impacts of climate change, from slow onset events to extreme weather events, including coastal erosion, desertification, rising sea levels, wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves and other natural disasters;

76. Believes that cohesion funding should benefit both urban and rural areas in a balanced way; calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban and rural dimension through designated investments in both urban and rural areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and sustainable investments in order to address the demographic challenge, the development trap and the urban-rural divide that affect EU regions;

77. Calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased; calls on the Member States to ensure that small municipalities are also able to access the ERDF funds dedicated to financing sustainable and integrated urban development projects; calls, similarly, for funding to be earmarked for rural areas and regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local and regional authorities and for the benefit of the local communities and the respective regions;

78. Calls for the establishment of a genuine structural policy for rural areas, with appropriate thematic objectives that respond to the particular challenges of these areas, such as rural desertification, population ageing, depopulation, rural abandonment, the decline of communities in general and insufficient healthcare and education opportunities;

79. Encourages synergies between joint projects and collaboration agreements between the different levels of governance in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, innovation, climate change mitigation/adaptation and the green and digital transitions; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of sustainable investments, instead of fragmentation and a lack of synergies;

80. Highlights the added value of territorial cooperation in general and cross-border cooperation in particular; calls for the budget for European Territorial Cooperation programmes to be increased, as they provide a unique framework for interregional, cross-border and transnational cooperation and help address common challenges, fostering partnerships and promoting economic development, social cohesion and environmental sustainability; suggests that the ‘borderland billion’ be entrusted directly to the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, which is to be tasked with its independent management and distribution among projects;

81. Considers the Territorial Agenda 2030 to be a real and proper instrument that ensures the EU’s cohesion through the management of each of its regions and their particularities; calls on the Commission to consider modifying the role of the Territorial Agenda 2030 beyond that of a territorial management guide; calls on the Member States to develop their territorial agendas in line with the Territorial Agenda 2030 as a basis for programming their territorial strategies, taking into account the specificities of each of their regions, and serving as an incentive, as well as in order to stimulate the decision-making process and the design of territorial and urban policies;

82. Acknowledges that integrated territorial development tools play a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources; calls for a proportion of the cohesion policy funds to be earmarked for developing territorial approaches in rural areas or for urban-rural territorial approaches through integrated territorial investments, community-led local development or other mechanisms for non-agricultural rural development to complement actions supported by the LEADER approach under the common agricultural policy, as this will also be a fundamental way of addressing the geography of discontent;

83. Is of the opinion that the use of cohesion decommitments for reserve margins within cohesion policy would help, inter alia, to absorb future inflationary hikes or supply chain shocks; believes that this use should operate on a rolling basis, dependent on necessity and following the multiannual and annual decommitment cycles;

84. Believes that the trade-off between the necessary place-based orientation and the support to the Union’s thematic priorities could be addressed through higher flexibility and a selectable menu of thematic objectives and challenges, accessible to regions and municipalities according to their development levels and needs, while respecting the thematic concentration at national level; underlines that such a model reduces the complexity of the programming process and factors in regional characteristics; stresses that cohesion policy should continue tracking the local landscape of needs in order to address them effectively in the context of reducing regional disparities across the EU;

85. Underscores that thematic concentration remains a cornerstone of achieving the transition towards a more competitive, smarter, more social and resilient Union, as well as a net-zero carbon economy; stresses, however, that it should be adapted to the real needs of regions and cities, and the way they operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared towards specific needs on the ground;

86. Asks the Commission, when determining the level of support for each region, to take into account additional characteristics, such as areas within the region with growth potential, the intensity of their particular challenges, their level of exposure to the impacts of ongoing transitions, such as the green, digital and industrial transitions, or their level of social progress, so as to better define the path of each region towards convergence; stresses that GDP as the sole indicator of development fails to take into account all of these aspects and calls for it to be complemented by other indicators, such as the EU Social Progress Index and the Climate Change Vulnerability Index; underlines the importance of paying particular attention to supporting regions facing a development trap, as highlighted in the 8th Cohesion Report;

87. Calls for intraregional disparities to be addressed by paying more attention to the diversity of territories; calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of assessing initial allocations and co-financing rates on the basis of NUTS 3 in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to prevent the emergence of pockets of poverty and underdevelopment; underlines that such a shift should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas, such as metropolitan areas;

88. Considers that, when allocating funds for local projects in urban and rural areas, the focus should be on joint projects of common interest, while also promoting the participation of SMEs; calls for smaller regional financial instruments to be combined with larger regional initiatives to enhance their efficiency and policy impact; calls on the Commission to provide guidance and planning support, especially for integrated territorial and small projects, to avoid decommitments and repurposing; highlights the importance of strengthening the bottom-up approach to territorial development, which is a vehicle for social innovation and capacity building;

89. Underlines the importance of good governance at all levels in the management of cohesion policy; highlights that the quality of governance structures can determine the optimal mix of investment priorities in order to achieve the necessary multilevel vertical and horizontal coordination to design and deliver integrated development strategies;

90. Calls for a strengthened representation of urban and rural authorities in the monitoring committees, which could co-assess the effectiveness of the management of the funds; reiterates that these representatives should, inter alia, share responsibility for programming and reprogramming in order to respect multilevel governance;

91. Calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to address the shortcomings identified in the management of the cohesion policy funds by the managing authorities, while, at the same time, simplifying access to technical assistance in order to improve the administrative and management capacities of the competent entities;

92. Calls for further involvement of Commission initiatives, such as the EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, in the process of designing and implementing the next generation of cohesion policy rules; believes that city networks play an indispensable role in bridging the gap between policymaking and implementation on the ground; acknowledges that policy and implementation support, geared towards mayors and local authorities, generates significantly better outcomes in the context of policy implementation;

93. Stresses that differences exist between Member States when it comes to the competences of local and regional authorities; calls for an enhanced place-based approach to bring cohesion policy management closer to the regional and local level; stresses that preparatory work, adequate administrative capacity and institutional backing are indispensable in order to ensure the effectiveness of the policy, reduce the number of irregularities and fraud, and avoid additional administrative burdens for managing authorities, contractors and final beneficiaries;

94. Is convinced that promoting an increased sense of local and regional ownership in the long term, as well as the durability of EU projects and higher co-financing leverage, can be achieved through increased fiscal capacity for regions and municipalities; acknowledges that such a path would improve the borrowing capacity of regions and municipalities linked to financial instruments provided by the EU budget; underlines that regional and local budgets should be able to compensate for the impact of inflation shocks and possible crises on EU co-financed projects;

95. Calls for the further involvement of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group in cohesion policy investments, especially in less-developed regions, through support for sustainable cities, sustainable energy, the circular economy, green jobs and local and regional innovation projects, including through increased use of financial instruments and support for private sector investment; calls for the expansion of the local and regional project assistance and financial instruments that complement and leverage EU grants; acknowledges that in many Member States, EIB financing, such as structural programme loans, contributes significantly to the national co-financing obligations under cohesion policy, which in turn facilitates and accelerates the implementation of the programmes;

96. Underlines that technical, financial and administrative capacity is essential in ensuring that managing bodies and local and regional authorities acquire technical knowledge, especially on climate change, which they can use for urban and rural planning and management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments;

97. Calls for existing technical assistance and advisory programmes to specifically target smaller municipalities and cross-border, remote and rural areas, as well as the outermost and island regions, to help them face new challenges such as the green transition and climate change; underlines the importance, in this respect, of technical assistance instruments being developed in collaboration between the EIB and the Commission, including on energy efficiency; calls for targeted support in the form of 100 % EU financing for technical, financial and administrative capacity building, project design and preparation, identifying and building a project pipeline, as well as strategic planning capabilities, including planning instruments; believes that the URBIS platform, as a single point of contact for municipalities, should be further developed;

98. Insists on a critical review of the Commission’s ad hoc initiatives and the thorough screening of new initiatives regarding their quality and quantity; demands that this process be managed jointly and in partnership, with guaranteed representation at the local level, including of cities and rural areas, and of regions and civil society organisations; warns that the proliferation of Commission ad hoc initiatives financed by cohesion policy funds, without added value for the local and regional level, risks undermining the effectiveness of the overall cohesion appropriations planned in advance; insists that every new Commission initiative be accompanied by a corresponding budgetary top-up;

°

° °

99. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Committee of the Regions and the national and regional parliaments of the Member States.