opinion parliamentary committee draft, 3 April 2025
On the possibilities for simplification of cohesion funds
Document BUDG-PA-770223 · (2024/2106(INI))
Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
AI:In short
This draft opinion proposes amendments to a report on simplifying cohesion funds, focusing on reducing red tape for beneficiaries and improving fund access. It stresses the need for flexibility within cohesion policy to respond to unforeseen situations without compromising its main objectives, and opposes top-down centralisation. It calls for measures to prevent double funding, ensure interoperability of data-mining tools, and align payment needs with MFF ceilings.
Position. The Committee on Budgets proposes amendments to the report, focusing on beneficiary-oriented simplification, flexibility within cohesion policy, and caution against centralisation.
Key points
- Notes that prioritising Recovery and Resilience Facility milestones delayed cohesion fund implementation and requests future burden be considered.
- Stresses that simplification should focus on beneficiaries, scrapping unnecessary red tape and ensuring better access to funds.
- Recalls that cohesion funds were repurposed for emergencies outside its scope, risking policy objectives; calls for limited flexibility within cohesion policy remit.
- Opposes top-down centralisation; notes positive elements in the Recovery and Resilience Facility but highlights traceability issues and Court of Auditors findings.
- Calls on the Commission to prevent double funding, ensure interoperability of data-mining tools, and balance simplification with budget protection, referencing Court of Auditors recommendations.
- Calls for an approach matching implementation cycles with lower payment needs at the start, aligned with MFF payment ceilings.
- Deletes a recommendation for a direct funding mechanism for cities in the next multiannual financial framework.
- Underlines that cohesion policy should promote growth, jobs, and SME support through public-private partnerships and synergies with other funds.
Who is affected
- Beneficiaries of cohesion funds: simplification measures aim to reduce red tape and improve access.
- National and regional administrations: burden from simultaneous implementation of Recovery and Resilience Facility and cohesion funds is acknowledged.
- Cities: a previous proposal for direct funding in the next MFF is deleted.
- SMEs: support is facilitated through synergies and public-private partnerships.
Written by AI from the full text · every figure comes from the text · ¶ opens the paragraph · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Full text
Jump to an amendment (9)
Amendment 46 paragraphs
The Committee on Budgets submits the following to the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Da. whereas the establishment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the implementation deadline of 2026 for Member States led many national governments to prioritise the fulfilment of milestones and targets of this facility over the implementation of the funds under cohesion policy; whereas the delays in the submission of the Partnership Agreements by the Member States and the slow pace of implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes, as well as the request for an extension of the previous 2014-2020 programmes, is partly explained by this prioritisation; whereas the burden on national and regional public administrations and the consequent difficulty in executing funds and implementing programmes must be taken into account in the future in view of avoiding the difficulties in the management of cohesion policy funds; |
Or. en
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States; | E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment, as well as the simultaneous fulfilment of milestones and targets linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility, has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States; |
Or. en
Amendment 3
Read the rest (34 paragraphs)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Stresses that future simplification measures should focus on beneficiaries with the aim of scrapping unnecessary red tape and ensuring better access to the funds; |
Or. en
Amendment 4
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. Recalls that, due to a lack of flexibility in the EU budget, cohesion policy resources were used and re-purposed as a response to different emergencies, including emergencies outside the scope of cohesion policy, thus putting the achievement of policy objectives at risk; considers that cohesion funding should include a limited degree of flexibility to react to unforeseen situations within the remit of cohesion policy, without compromising its primary objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
Or. en
Amendment 5
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding; | 8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding; recalls that the reports of the European Court of Auditors on the Recovery and Resilience Facility point to the difficulty in the traceability of these funds, the insufficient transparency and interoperability of national platforms, and the absence of evaluations that verify the impact of milestones and targets; |
Or. en
Amendment 6
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget; | 12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget, taking as a reference the recommendations expressed by the European Court of Auditors in its reports; underlines that double structures should be avoided and responsibilities under shared management clearly allocated; |
Or. en
Amendment 7
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12a. Considers that an approach should be taken that better matches the implementation cycle, featuring lower payment needs at the beginning of the period with the payment ceilings defined in the MFF that have a more linear profile; |
Or. en
Amendment 8
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 9
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13a. Underlines that cohesion policy should promote economic growth in the regions to make them attractive to investment, and to create and develop companies, create jobs and generate opportunities; recalls the importance of public-private partnerships and of synergies and coordination with other EU funds and instruments, as well as national programmes that facilitate support for SMEs; |
Or. en