What changed

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS

P9_TA(2024)0174

As a decade of cohesion policy investments draws to an end, the time has come to take stock of the policy’s implementation and achievements during the past programming period and to contribute to the reflection on its future.

Cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States

Cohesion policy investments across the EU have resulted in unparalleled positive impacts on regions, cities, rural, border and remote areas. Directly or indirectly, every EU Member State has experienced the positive effects of financing through the EU budget. EU investments in transport infrastructure, energy, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), skills, innovation, agriculture, reforms and other fields build the EU in times of peace and rebuild it in times of crisis. The multi-priority investment approach of cohesion policy, combined with its shared management have contributed to the EU’s priorities: SME support, research and innovation, digitalisation, farming, urban infrastructure, tourism, large transport infrastructure, culture and education, healthcare, cross-border projects, the energy transition, energy efficiency, climate and environment. The outcomes of the thousands of local projects confirm the indispensable role of regional investment through cohesion policy and consolidate its role and visibility in the multiannual financial framework.

Committee on Regional Development

Your rapporteur’s conclusions and recommendations are based on the wealth of available data on the implementation of the main cohesion policy funds 2014-2020 - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Social Fund (ESF) and Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). Data is naturally scarcer on the cohesion instruments adopted as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent Ukraine and energy crises - the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+), REACT-EU (Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe), CARE (Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe), FAST-CARE (Flexible Assistance to Territories) and SAFE (Supporting Affordable Energy). This is because not enough time has passed to allow for proper insight. Nevertheless, your rapporteur believes that, despite certain limitations, some lessons can be drawn from a preliminary assessment of investments.

PE756.089

To draft this report, your rapporteur has examined not just the effectiveness of the implementation of 2014-2020 funds, but also the actual effectiveness of the policy: after all, an increased focus on performance and results was one of the key features of this period. In other words, beyond financial implementation, the rapporteur looked at available data on the actual results of the investments to try to determine how the available cohesion instruments have delivered on the cohesion objective enshrined in the Treaty, as well as on the priorities of the Union strategy for smart sustainable and inclusive growth.

European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2024 on cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States (2023/2121(INI))

This assessment exercise has meant that the rapporteur has grappled with the challenges that cohesion policy is facing, some of which have been extensively discussed by the Committee on Regional Development (REGI) in the last parliamentary term. Despite the policy overhaul that took place before the current programming period, cohesion policy is once again at a turning point: it has to compete with other instruments and delivery models, and is expected to deliver on a growing set of long-term priorities while being increasingly called on to respond to emergencies. The survival of cohesion policy will depend on a successful conclusion of the 2014-2020 period and an effective implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes, as well as on its ability to reinvent itself, adapt to a changing world and tackle emerging challenges. The rapporteur’s intention is that the conclusions and recommendations of this report serve as input for the ongoing interinstitutional debate on these matters and thus help shape the future cohesion framework.

Procedure and sources

Your rapporteur has relied on the following sources, among others:

 discussions held in the REGI committee with the Commission and the permanent representatives of the Member States on the implementation of cohesion policy funds (an ongoing exercise that began in July 2022);

 publications by Parliament’s research services, including: Parliament’s PolDep B study on absorption rates (preliminary results);

 an analysis of available data, including the open databases on cohesion policy managed by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), Cohesion Open Data Platform, the Coronavirus Dashboard and Kohesio;

 Commission sources, including the eighth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion and the annual implementation reports of the EU’s Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds;

 a European Parliamentary Research Service review of studies by other EU institutions, including the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), policy papers and evaluations of the policies implemented by individual Member States;

 the work of the high-level group on the future of cohesion policy;

 the public hearing on simplification of cohesion policy held in the REGI Committee on 23-24 October 2023,

 the interparliamentary committee meeting on the future of cohesion organised by the REGI Committee on 7 November 2023,

 contacts with the Commission, managing authorities, regional and local authorities and other stakeholders.

Cohesion policy in the 2014-2020 period

A new framework

In the 2014-2020 period, a single set of rules was introduced to cover the EU’s five Structural and Investment Funds for reasons of coordination and complementarity, as well as in order to establish a robust link with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (Europe 2020 strategy). The ERDF, the CF and the ESF became one of the investment pillars of the 2020 strategy, while at the same time contributing to cohesion aims. Article 9 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) translated the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy into 11 thematic objectives (TOs), which each of the ESI Funds needed to support.

In addition, the ERDF, the ESF and the CF had the specific goal of supporting investment for growth and jobs in all categories of regions. The ERDF also supported the territorial cooperation goal.

To round up the strategic programming approach, the CPR created a stronger link with country-specific recommendations and provided tools and guidance to achieve synergies between the funds, such as the possibility of multi-fund programmes, integrated territorial investments (ITIs), community-led local development (CLLD) and joint action plans.

In addition, the new framework introduced new mechanisms to improve the policy’s effectiveness, such as the performance framework, the performance reserve and the ex ante conditionalities. It also included important simplification measures, made reporting requirements lighter, introduced e-cohesion and took some steps towards results-based management.

Lastly, the new framework enhanced the territorial dimension of the policy when compared to the previous programming period. The Common Strategic Framework annexed to the CPR and the European Code of Conduct on Partnership are an example of this.

Cohesion as a crisis response tool

From 2020, several major crises have shaken the EU and the wider world. The COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the energy crisis it triggered have had a serious impact on people and businesses in all EU regions. Cohesion policy played a major role in the EU’s response to this difficult situation. In 2020, a series of amendments to the 2014-2020 rules, CRII and CRII+, granted Member States greater flexibility to use cohesion funds to support vulnerable people, businesses and the health sector. In 2021 extra funds were made available through REACT-EU to support future-oriented measures.

In 2022, the flexibilities introduced through CARE and FAST-CARE helped Member States reallocate available 2014-2020 funding to assistance for people fleeing Ukraine. The 2014-2020 framework was further modified by SAFE as part of RePowerEU. Thanks to this initiative, cohesion policy was able to help vulnerable households and SMEs cope with the sharp hike in energy costs resulting from the war in Ukraine.

Findings on implementation

The rapporteur has looked at the implementation of investments made under the 2014-2020 cohesion policy legal framework, based on Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013. As of February 2024, the EU payments for the main funds through which the policy was delivered (the ERDF, the CF and the ESF), together with the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), amounted to a total of EUR 368 billion for the 2014-2020 period, with an absorption rate of 91% (excluding national co-financing and REACT-EU).

For payments, the 2014-2020 period has followed the usual project life cycle, although more slowly. Payments started late and were slow at the beginning of the period (7.6 % by end 2016). Although they accelerated substantially from 2017 onwards, as of 2018, most Member States had slower payment rates than at the equivalent stage in the previous programming period. This is arguably due to the fact that the 2014-2020 framework was adopted fairly late, just a few days before its official start. Appointing national authorities and meeting the pre-requisites introduced for the ex-ante conditionalities also took longer than expected. The impact of the change to the decommitment rules (n+3) on the pace of implementation remains unclear.

As of 2020, implementation was affected first by the COVID-19 pandemic and then by the refugee and energy crises. The reprogramming effort under CRII(+) and the possibility of 100 % co-financing through CARE, among other measures, contributed to accelerating expenditure rates in 2020, 2021 and 2022. Still, at the end of 2022 the absorption rate (excluding REACT-EU) was just 77 %.

Expenditure has significantly caught up in 2023, so that a comparable implementation percentage has been reached as at the same point in 2007-2013. However, overall financial implementation has been slower than in the previous period. Several programmes face decommitments for not reaching their payments targets, and significant differences can be observed across Member States, regions and at TO level. Payments for transition regions tend to be slower, as does expenditure under TO5 (climate change adaptation), TO4 (low-carbon economy), TO11 (administrative capacity) and TO6 (environment).

For funding available under REACT-EU, to date, just about 50 % of the total available funds have been paid out to Member States. There is a risk, already pointed out by the ECA, that Member States are rushing to spend the available funding before the end of the period and paying insufficient attention to performance and value for money.

In terms of absorption patterns, roughly one third of Member States are late absorbers. While the current average payment rate in the EU is 91 %, some of the older and larger Member States are lagging significantly behind. The persistently low absorption patterns in certain Member States suggest underlying structural problems, which regularly result in great pressure on authorities towards the end of the programming period, and could eventually lead to unsatisfactory results and a lower effectiveness of investments, or to the loss of available funds.

We can therefore conclude that a slow spending rate is a major problem in certain Member States. Agreements on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) are reached late and this consistently delays the adoption of the regulatory framework for cohesion in each programming period. This should also be better tackled in future programming periods. In addition, previous analyses show that the delays in the spending of EU structural funds tend to accumulate across programming periods. Preliminary data on the 2021-2027 period indicate that absorption is even lower in the current cycle than in 2014-2020.

However, absorption is just one aspect of implementation. In his preparatory work for this report, your rapporteur has identified a series of additional factors that have influenced implementation and the effectiveness of cohesion policy in 2014-2020, including the complexity of rules and procedures, administrative burdens, the capacity of local and regional authorities, the price crises and the labour shortages that the EU has recently experienced. These are the basis for the recommendations in the motion for resolution.

Programming, reprogramming, implementation and closure of cohesion investments affect policy outcomes nationally but most of all locally, at regional and sub-regional level. The CPR for cohesion policy and the sectoral regulations covered by the CPR have been improved over time. The changes introduced to the 2021-2027 regulations addressed a number of challenges. However, one area of improvement that has not yet been sufficiently tackled is implementation at local level through local authorities, including municipalities. Therefore, your rapporteur has focused the report on recommendations for the local level.

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States

(2023/2121(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the 2022 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) entitled ‘Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’,

– having regard to the IPCC special report of 2018 entitled ‘Global warming of 1.51,5 °C – An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C1,5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty’,

– having regard to the IPCC special report of 2019 entitled ‘Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems’,

– having regard to the EU Annual Report on the State of Regions and Cities 2022,

– having regard to the study entitled ’EU lagging regions: state of play and future challenges’, , published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union on 26 October 2020,

– having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

1. Notes that evaluations carried out by the Member States on the outcomes of 2014-2020 cohesion policy investments show that, in general, cohesion policy brought about positive results in the areas that it supported, ; acknowledges that such investments have contributed to the Europe 2020 strategy objective of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

2. Welcomes cohesion policy’s contribution to research and innovation, as it, among other things, strengthened cooperation between the research community and businesses and helped turn research into marketable products or services; notes that, according to the Commission’s figures, by the end of 2022, more than 75 000 companies had cooperated with research institutions and around 37 000 had introduced new products to the market thanks to support through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); notes in addition that, by the same date, more than 72 000 researchers were working in better facilities; underlines that cohesion policy has also helped bridge the digital divide between regions by supporting the development of information and communications technology infrastructure in less-developed regions; welcomes the fact that, as a result, 7.87,8 million households had been provided with better broadband access by the end of 2022;

3. Points out that cohesion policy support has also brought tangible benefits to thousands of SMEs; stresses that this has been one of the best performing areas of ERDF support; underlines that the ERDF had provided support to more than 2.22,2 million businesses by the end of 2022, which created around 370 000 jobs; notes that evaluations carried out in Czechia, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria contain examples of SMEs that have become more competitive and innovative, increased their productivity and gained better access to international markets;

4. Underscores that cohesion has also played an essential role in the transition to a low-carbon economy; notes that reducing energy consumption in buildings is a major component of this shift and that support from cohesion policy in this area has already borne fruit; welcomes the fact that evaluations by the Member States show that measures to improve energy efficiency have been effective across the EU; notes that, by the end of 2022, the ERDF had helped to improve the energy efficiency in 550 000 households; highlights that there is evidence that cohesion policy supported investments in several coal regions that contributed to decarbonisation; notes that in Asturias, Spain, efforts focused on youth and female employment in rural areas, with the aim of incentivising entrepreneurship and social inclusion; also notes that in the region of Yugoiztochen, in Bulgaria, cohesion policy funds have focused on energy efficiency, the modernisation of SMEs and the promotion of skills development; acknowledges that measures aimed at renewable energy production have increased renewable production capacity in the EU by 6 000 MW by the end of 2022, with a target of 8 700 MW by the end of 2023; notes that positive results have been reported in this area, for example in Estonia and regions of France;

5. Underlines that evaluations of efforts related to climate change adaptation and risk prevention show the need for cooperation across borders to make measures financed by cohesion policy truly effective; underlines that some countries have already implemented joint risk prevention and civil protection measures, notes that such cooperation has occurred between Italy and France, Czechia and Poland, and Italy and Austria; stresses that, in regard to climate change adaptation, thanks to cohesion investments 29 million people are now less exposed to flooding;

6. Notes that cohesion support from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund has also increased the number of people benefiting from a better water supply (8.3(8,3 million people by the end of 2022) and better management of their municipal waste; notes that most of the targeted beneficiaries (70 %) of the measures to improve water supply live in Italy, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria and Czechia; also notes that in France and Belgium, cohesion-funded projects have helped boost the circular economy;

7. Stresses that energy and transport networks have received significant investments from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund; notes that, although the impact of this kind of infrastructure project can only be properly assessed in the longer term, according to evaluations carried out in Poland and Czechia, some of the investments in road and rail infrastructure have already resulted in fewer road accidents, reduced travel times and less pollution; welcomes the fact that, in Slovakia, the modernisation of tram lines has improved connections, reduced travel time, improved safety and helped to reduce noise and vibrations; notes that, in addition, financed natural gas projects in Member States such as Poland and Bulgaria have contributed to the strategic objective of diversifying their energy supply; welcomes the fact that the Greece-Bulgaria gas interconnector in Bulgaria, supported by the ERDF, started operating in October 2022 and is contributing to the EU’s strategic aims of energy supply autonomy and source diversification;

8. Acknowledges that cohesion, especially through the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Youth Employment Initiative, has supported successful employment, social inclusion and educational and vocational training measures; stresses that by the end of 2022, 6.86,8 million people had found a job thanks to measures supported by the ESF and the Youth Employment Initiative, and 10.210,2 million people had earned a qualification;

9. Underlines that evaluations from Member States such as Italy, Germany, Poland and Ireland have shown that people, especially young people, who participated in training measures, apprenticeships or traineeships supported by cohesion policy funds were significantly more likely to find jobs; notes that Poland and Ireland achieved good results with projects aimed at the long-term unemployed; also notes that an evaluation of the 2014-2020 Youth Employment Initiative carried out in Hungary found that the programme had contributed significantly to the probability of participants being employed in the short term, but that this impact was declining with time; stresses that another evaluation from Hungary concluded that the labour market integration support schemes financed through the ESF had a positive and substantial impact on finding employment; notes that an evaluation of the Youth Employment Initiative carried out in Sweden found overall positive effects on employment for participants, especially those with a foreign background; stresses that training measures for both pupils and teachers have had a positive impact on early school-leaving rates, for example in Germany, Portugal and Spain;

10. Notes that the ESF has helped entrepreneurs launch new businesses and provided training so that companies can better adapt to changes in the market; underlines that the ESF programme in Thuringia, Germany dedicated to strengthening entrepreneurship has supported, among other projects, the Thuringian Centre for Start-ups and Entrepreneurship; acknowledges that, by the end of 2021, the centre had helped approximately 2 900 people start a new business in the region; notes that refugees and migrants arriving in Luxembourg had access to a dedicated entrepreneurship programme supported by the ESF;

11. Stresses that, through cohesion policy financial support for projects in the healthcare sector, mainly through ESF and ERDF investments, 58.358,3 million people had access to improved healthcare services across the EU by the end of 2022; underlines that, in Lithuania, for example, cohesion-funded projects have managed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and the suicide rate;

12. Welcomes the cohesion policy contribution to territorial cooperation; notes that this specific goal of the ERDF helped fund cross-border transnational and interregional projects in areas such as research, development and innovation and the environment; underlines that, as reported by the Commission, without this specific cohesion support, most of these cooperation projects would not have taken place; stresses that, by the end of 2022, more than 40 000 businesses had participated in cross-border transnational or interregional research projects, and around 178 000 people had benefited from cross-border mobility initiatives; points out that, according to recent evaluations compiled by the Commission, there are examples of successful cooperation on thematic issues, such as information and communications technology projects related to smart cities in Greece and Cyprus; notes, in addition, that the Sweden-Finland-Norway Botnia-Atlantica programme has increased knowledge on sea and coastal areas protection; underlines that the impact evaluation of the 2014-2020 Central Europe Interreg programme , comprising Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, showed that, by end of 2021, the programme had had positive outcomes in the fields of innovation, low carbon, the environment, culture and transport; welcomes the fact that the Romania-Serbia Interreg programme also contributed to strengthening the cooperation between both countries in all relevant areas, and that the Croatia-Serbia programme has supported renewable electricity production and increased energy efficiency; draws attention to the positive results of the Sweden, Denmark and Norway Interreg programme in the area of the green economy;

21. Underlines the importance of applying Article 349 TFEU in all EU policies to achieve the objectives set out therein; recalls the vital role played by cohesion policy in the outermost regions; emphasises the importance of designing and maintaining tailor-made programmes and measures for these regions, as the majority of the outermost regions are still among the less-developed regions or should be treated as such; calls on the Commission to guarantee high co-financing rates, specifically for the outermost regions, by designating all of these regions as less-developed regions for this purpose;

22. Stresses that disproportionate burdens, such as the inherent structural disadvantages faced by all border regions, should be compensated with a separate system for regional aid designed specifically for border regions; demands that 0.260,26 % of the EU’s cohesion policy budget be reserved exclusively for development in the border regions (‘borderland billion’) at the beginning of every new programming period, starting with the 2028-2034 period;

23. Believes that the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria must prevent environmentally harmful measures in order to achieve the goal of a carbon-neutral Europe by 2050 at the latest; calls on the Commission to introduce, in the forthcoming cohesion policy post-2027 legal framework, strict criteria to improve the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle; calls furthermore for at least the same level of climate-related spending in the new framework in order to achieve the climate objectives set by the Paris Agreement, and in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal;

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;

57. Underlines the multidimensional nature of rural development, which goes beyond agriculture per se; notes that only 11.511,5 % of people living in rural areas work in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors;

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;

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;

70. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to extend the validity of the Code of Conduct for Partnerships under the ESI Funds (Delegated Regulation (EU) No 240/2014); believes that these guidelines contribute significantly to the better involvement of local and regional authorities and other stakeholders, but should be revised to further improve their effectiveness and ensure a more in-depth involvement of partners to promote place-based actions;

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;

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.

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

14.11.2023

LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Younous Omarjee

Chair

Committee on Regional Development

BRUSSELS

IPOL-COM-AGRI D(2023) 37780

Subject: Opinion on Cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States –2023/2121(INI)

Dear Chair,

Under the procedure referred to above, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has decided to submit an opinion to the Committee on Regional Development. At its meeting of 28 June 2023, AGRI Coordinators decided to send the opinion in the form of a letter.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development decided, after the vote on the opinion of 7th December 2023 to call on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution.

Yours sincerely,

Norbert Lins

SUGGESTIONS

1. Stresses the importance of supporting rural areas by valuing their diversity and potential, improving transport connectivity, high-speed broadband, the provision of services, economic diversification and job creation, and helping them respond to challenges such as rural desertification, population ageing, depopulation and rural abandonment, the decline of communities in general and insufficient healthcare and education opportunities;

2. Calls for the restoration, under the Common Provisions Regulations, of the Rural Development Found (currently EAFRD); such a fund should be managed regionally or with decisive regional participation, placing greater emphasis than before on structural policy measures in sparsely populated areas;

3. Highlights the valuable contribution to rural development made by the LEADER programme, which aims to engage local actors in the design and delivery of strategies for their rural areas;

4. Reaffirms the importance of urban-rural linkages and of the development of strategies based on functional areas, with the aim of preventing rural areas from shrinking;

5. Notes that the cohesion policy and regional environmental strategies offer opportunities to support farmers and forest managers’ sustainable investments in climate change adaptation, in particular the prevention of floods, drought and fires;

6. Stresses the need to set cohesion policy and CAP objectives that are consistent and comparable with each other; stresses that these processes should take into account the gender perspective;

7. Calls on the Commission to identify and implement the necessary flexibility measures to ensure the transfer of unspent EU funds, channelling them to different agricultural sectors;

ANNEX: List of entities or persons

from whom the rapporteur for the OPINION has received input

The following list is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the draft opinion, under form of letter, until the adoption thereof in committee:

This opinion was drawn up in the respect of confidentiality procedure. In that context the rapporteur for the opinion does not receive any input from entities or persons within the meaning of this Annex.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE