On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Fund for Regional Development including for European Territorial Cooperation (Interreg) and the Cohesion Fund as part of the Fund set out in Regulation (EU) […] [NRP] and establishing conditions for the implementation of the Union support to regional development from 2028 to 2034

4.Calls for clearly ring-fenced allocations for the ERDF, the CF and Interreg respectively; considers, furthermore, that the specific objectives of the ERDF, the CF and Interreg respectively should be clearly defined in the specific regulation establishing these instruments for the operationalisation of their separate ring-fenced envelopes; reiterates the need to avoid fragmentation and maintain the horizontal implementation framework, including overarching rules and principles such as respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should apply uniformly across the policies covered under the NRPPs, while ensuring coherent and consistent implementation provisions; calls on the lead committee to coordinate its amendments to ensure there is no contradiction with the proposed NRP Regulation;

5.Deplores the lack of budget lines for the ERDF and the CF in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFDS) accompanying the proposed NRP Regulation, particularly compared to the situation for the same actions in the present MFF; considers that this will reduce the visibility of the allocation of funds, undermine long-term territorial development objectives, and notes that this would give the Commission great latitude to shift and decide on spending priorities during implementation; stresses that simplification and flexibility must not come at the expense of transparency and oversight by the budgetary authority; recalls Parliament’s position as expressed in the MFF Interim Report, and recommends, therefore, that the overall envelope be broken down per fund, and by specific objective under each fund;

6.Deplores the lack of a sufficiently detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature proposed in the LFDS; considers that this will hamper the budgetary authority’s ability to accurately steer policy priorities in the annual budgetary procedure; expresses concerns that the overly aggregated budgetary architecture would dramatically increase the Commission’s discretion in transferring and reallocating resources without a decision from the budgetary authority, and would severely limit parliamentary oversight; recommends, therefore, a more detailed nomenclature that properly reflects the objectives and structure of the ERDF, the CF and Interreg, and enhances transparency, accountability and parliamentary control;

7.Recalls that the budgetary nomenclature must be established in line with Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 (the Financial Regulation), which provides that each title must correspond to a policy area and each chapter, as a rule, to a programme or an activity, in line with the principles of specification, sound financial management and transparency; recommends that the Committee on Regional Development amend the proposal to include an annex defining the nomenclature of the programmes; insists that the budgetary nomenclature forms an integral part of Parliament’s negotiating position and must be discussed in interinstitutional negotiations; considers, in this regard, that the revised LFDS must form part of the final political agreement;

8.Calls for the full involvement of regional and local authorities in the design, monitoring implementation and evaluation of funds, based on the principles of shared management, multilevel governance, subsidiarity and partnership including through direct negotiations with the Commission; stresses the need for clearly defined resources, partnership rules and a strong territorial focus; stresses that early, meaningful and structured involvement of civil society and relevant stakeholders as well as territorial partners is necessary to improve ownership, absorption and responsiveness to local development challenges; considers that robust partnership arrangements are essential to ensure effective implementation, of Union funding;

9.Considers that the Union’s funding for cohesion must ensure accessibility for all territories, including for outermost regions, islands, as well as eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and include allocations for all categories of regions in order to ensure fairness, predictability and long-term programming; calls therefore for the overall envelope for ERDF cohesion policy interventions to be earmarked per category of region; regrets the lack of a clear and transparent allocation key for regional envelopes, therefore leaving the distribution of funds entirely to the discretion of national authorities;

10.Insists that sufficiently detailed and sound legislation, with an appropriate level of governance, is a condition for proper budgetary decision-making and adequate parliamentary oversight during budget implementation; recommends introducing provisions to strengthen control over how the budget is mobilised and spent; considers that the so-called ‘steering mechanism’ can in no way be a substitute for Parliament’s legislative and budgetary powers, and cannot be conceived without a sound governance architecture that ensures the effective exercise of such powers;

11.Believes that all substantive policy choices such as programme objectives, spending priorities, financial allocations, funding rates, definitions and calculation methods must be determined in the ERDF/CF/Interreg Regulation, with full respect for Parliament’s prerogatives as a co-legislator and one arm of the EU’s budgetary authority;

12.Takes note of the proposed complementarity between the ERDF, the CF, Interreg and other programmes, especially under the NRPPs and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) as well as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); stresses that enhanced complementarity between instruments must not come at the expense of traceability of expenditure or the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; underlines that the contribution from other programmes must be explicitly identifiable at all stages of the budgetary cycle; stresses, in this regard, that any such contribution must be duly reflected in the programme performance statement for the ERDF, the CF and Interreg; insists that the budgetary authority retain full control over how resources are combined across instruments and over the effective contribution of each programme to EU priorities, specifically through detailed budgetary nomenclature; stresses that enhanced complementarity between programmes must not lead to disproportionate complexity for beneficiaries; calls for EU funding to be clearer, more accessible and more coherent in order to facilitate uptake and maximise the impact of investments;

13.Considers that sufficient resources, including human, technical and IT resources, must be available from the outset and throughout the entire programming period of the 2028-2034 MFF to ensure an effective implementation of the Union support to regional development;

14. Recalls the proposal for a regulation on establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programmes and activities (the ‘performance regulation’), which establishes a single streamlined list for performance indicators and monitoring and evaluation provisions, some of which are relevant for the ERDF/CF/Interreg fund; underlines that any change to the architecture, objectives and eligible actions under the programmes will need to be appropriately reflected in Annex I of the performance regulation, as part of the process of amending and negotiating that regulation; points out that, while sectoral legislation can supplement the performance regulation, for instance as regards programme evaluations, it should remain consistent with the provisions of that regulation; stresses the need for indicators that also reflect the Treaty-based objectives of the policy;

15. Recalls that under Article 6(2) of the Financial Regulation, a general regime of conditionality applies to the establishment and implementation of the budget in case of breaches of the rule of law; underlines, furthermore, that Article 6(3) of the same regulation requires the Member States and the Commission, in the implementation of the budget, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and respect the values on which the EU is founded, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;

16. Calls for consistent and harmonised requirements for Member States regarding the prevention, detection, reporting and correction of fraud from the outset of the implementation period; stresses, furthermore, that robust control and audit frameworks must be established to protect the Union’s financial interests across all funds, programmes and financial instruments of the future MFF.