What changed

Follow-up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the ninth report on economic and social cohesion

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Rapporteur : Jacek PROTAS (EPP / PL)

on the ninth report on economic and social cohesion

References: 2024/2107(INI) / A10-0066/2025 / P10_TA(2025)0098

(2024/2107(INI))

Date of adoption of the resolution: 8 May 2025

– having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Regional Development (REGI)

– having regard to Articles 4, 162, 174 to 178, and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Brief analysis/ assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (Common Provisions Regulation),

Building on the Commission’s report on economic, social, and territorial cohesion published in March 2024, the resolution underscores the key role of cohesion policy in promoting convergence, reducing regional disparities, and addressing the challenges of the green, digital, and demographic transitions. It puts forward policy recommendations after 2027, with a strong focus on preserving its core principles: a bottom-up approach, multi-level governance, decentralised programming, and the partnership principle. The resolution calls for a more ambitious cohesion policy envelope under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), stronger enforcement of the rule of law, a more flexible programming framework tailored to territorial needs, enhanced synergies between funds at all levels, greater alignment with the rules governing the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), improved link with the EU’s economic governance, and tailored support for regions along the EU’s eastern borders. It opposes any centralisation of cohesion policy governance and expresses caution towards adopting a one-size-fits-all, performance-based model for fund disbursement – particularly if applied to reforms that fall outside the remit of regional competences.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund,

Response to requests and overview of actions taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments,

The Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s resolution on the 9th Cohesion Report, adopted on 8 May.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013,

The Commission shares the European Parliament’s view that a stronger focus on performance-based delivery could enhance the effectiveness of future cohesion policy (§2). It further considers that such an approach could accelerate fund absorption by triggering faster payments to Member States, while ensuring better value for money. In the Commission’s view, extending this approach more broadly would contribute to simplification – particularly in terms of reporting – and create financial incentives for Member States to implement reforms essential for growth and cohesion, all while respecting national institutional frameworks and the specific competences of regional authorities.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund,

The Commission considers that thematic concentration requirements have contributed towards the alignment of cohesion policy funds with the EU strategic priorities. However, their design and implementation need to find the appropriate balance between Member State and regional specificity, the need for flexibility and predictability. In this context, the Commission welcomes the Parliament’s support for greater flexibility in fund programming beyond 2027 (§11), as this would enable faster responses to unforeseen challenges and better alignment with territorial needs.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013,

The Better Regulation guidelines require an assessment of territorial impacts, including on outermost regions, in a proportionate manner when such impacts are potentially significant. The Commission recognises the outermost regions’ specificities, as defined under Article 349 TFEU and highlighted in its 2022 Communication, and the need for tailored and place-based approaches (§18). The Commission considers possible impacts of legislative proposals on outermost regions when these are deemed significant, under the principle of proportionality. The Commission welcomes the participation of Member States and of the outermost regions to its consultation activities and the support with data that could point to significant asymmetric impacts.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the healthcare systems of Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative),

The Commission remains firmly committed to supporting Member States and regions impacted by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, with particular attention to the EU’s eastern border regions. It shares the European Parliament’s view on the importance of providing these regions with tailored support (§21), given the dual challenge they face in strengthening security and revitalising their economic and social fabric.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak,

Several initiatives have already been undertaken. Over EUR 1.4 billion have been mobilised for accommodation, healthcare, employment orientation, medical, social and psychological support in the context of the so-called CARE (Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe) package under 2014-2020 cohesion policy programmes. It allowed Member States to reprogramme cohesion policy funds (including the ERDF and the ESF+) to address the situation of people who fled Ukraine because of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Furthermore, EUR 150 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), originally allocated to planned Interreg programmes with Russia and Belarus, was redirected to internal cross-border cooperation programmes. This ensured that all EU regions bordering Russia and Belarus now participate in at least one internal Interreg programme and have more opportunities for cooperation with other EU regions. Targeted calls, dedicated information sessions, and technical assistance were also provided to maximise the uptake of this additional funding by local beneficiaries. To further reinforce cooperation with Ukraine and Moldova, an additional EUR 135 million, originally earmarked for programmes with Russia and Belarus, was reallocated to cross-border programmes with these countries. This funding supports key infrastructure projects, including those linked to the EU’s Solidarity Lanes Initiative, and Ukraine’s economic recovery.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/461 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and to countries negotiating their accession to the Union that are seriously affected by a major public health emergency,

Moreover, on 1 April, the Commission adopted specific measures to address strategic challenges under the mid-term review, through amendments to the cohesion policy regulatory framework. Based on the Commission’s proposal, Member States and regions are invited to adjust their cohesion policy programmes to align with the EU’s strategic priorities, including amongst others, improving water resilience, boosting industrial capacities in the defence sector, enhancing military mobility and facilitate industrial adjustment linked to the decarbonisation of production processes and products, notably by providing lifelong opportunities to regularly upskill and reskill people. Co-legislators reached provisional agreement on the mid-term review proposal on the 15 July, including on the proposal’s additionally proposed financial flexibilities. Co-legislators agreed that programmes covering eastern border regions would benefit from enhanced financial support: an additional 9.5% one-off pre-financing (instead of 1.5% for the rest of the programmes) in 2026, applied to the total support from the funds, and 100% EU financing, provided that at least 10% of programme resources are reallocated to the newly introduced priorities and those supporting the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP).

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards additional resources and implementing arrangements to provide assistance for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy (REACT-EU),

The Commission, through the Interreg programmes and in the spirit of shared management, actively encourages Member States to undertake awareness-raising activities in EU border regions, as part of the broader objective to strengthen cohesion and enhance the visibility and impact of EU support (§22). The Commission supports this through networks such as InformEU, capacity-building activities, and dedicated platforms like Interreg.eu and KEEP.eu to showcase success stories and European solidarity in action. Sustained citizen engagement remains a priority – as shown by the recently published Harvesting report on post2027 Interreg, presenting the summary of 2024 EU-wide consultations of stakeholders and citizens carried out by Interreg programmes and involving over 10,000 participants. The report indicates a broad consensus around that Interreg adds value and brings about positive change in knowledge exchange and learning, durable connections between people and communities, capacity to address common and complex challenges, role in building resilience, and territorial relevance and sensitivity to territorial specificities. The implementation of the BRIDGEforEU Regulation will in addition help raise awareness of the persistence of cross-border legal and administrative obstacles and facilitate their resolution.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/562 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE),

The Commission shares the European Parliament’s view on the importance of ensuring greater coherence among EU policies in order to contribute to the Treaty objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion (§23). The Commission is exploring a more flexible approach for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), notably through the establishment of national and regional partnership plans for each Member State. The Commission underlines that regions would be fully associated with the preparation and implementation of these plans, in accordance with the principles of partnership and subsidiarity. As enshrined in the TFEU Article 174, the overarching objective of reducing regional disparities and fostering convergence should remain central to all EU policies. Therefore, the need for additional specific guidelines on the "cohesion support" principle, as proposed by the Parliament, might not be required. In addition, the Commission recalls that its Better Regulation framework already incorporates a methodology to identify important asymmetric effects of Commission legislative proposals to different EU territories, ensuring that local and regional effects are duly analysed when designing new policies and legislation. Finally, the Commission takes note of the Parliament’s suggestion to further rely on innovative tools, such as RegHub, to gather data on the territorial impact of EU policies. At the same time, it stresses the importance of avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden stemming from additional reporting requirements.

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2039 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) 2021/1060 as regards additional flexibility to address the consequences of the military aggression of the Russian Federation FAST (Flexible Assistance for Territories) – CARE,

The Commission confirms that it will uphold its ongoing efforts to communicate the impact and achievements of EU cohesion policy, and that it will, in close cooperation with Member States and regions, continue to promote the visibility of EU actions for citizens, including greater transparency (§23).

– having regard to the URBACT programme for sustainable urban cooperation, established in 2002,

The Commission shares the Parliament’s concerns regarding the growing internal disparities observed within certain Member States (§24). As highlighted in the 9th Cohesion Report, these divergences stem from structural differences across regions – some suffer from geographical peripherality, others have been significantly affected by past economic and financial crises, while others are still coping with the impacts of industrial restructuring. Furthermore, national convergence is frequently accompanied by rising internal disparities, particularly between capital regions and other parts of the country. This dynamic creates multiple challenges, including congestion, social challenges, rising housing and labour costs, which can ultimately undermine the competitiveness of metropolitan areas. It may also jeopardise the balanced territorial development of the Member State as a whole.

– having regard to the Urban Agenda for the EU of 30 May 2016,

Cohesion policy plays a key role in addressing these imbalances by promoting a more balanced and polycentric development model, with a strong focus on supporting less developed regions. In this context, small towns and medium-sized cities are essential drivers of regional development, stimulating growth in their surrounding territories.

– having regard to the Territorial Agenda 2030 of 1 December 2020,

The Commission agrees with the European Parliament that cohesion policy and national policies must be mutually reinforcing to ensure a more effective and integrated approach to regional development. The envisaged introduction of national and regional partnership plans could contribute to greater alignment and consistency between EU priorities and the actions taken at national and regional levels.

– having regard to the 9th Cohesion Report, published by the Commission on 27 March 2024, and the Commission communication of 27 March 2024 on the 9th Cohesion Report (COM(2024)0149),

– having regard to the study entitled ‘The future of EU cohesion: Scenarios and their impacts on regional inequalities’, published by the European Parliamentary Research Service in December 2024,

– having regard to the Commission report of February 2024 entitled ‘Forging a sustainable future together – Cohesion for a competitive and inclusive Europe’,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 31 May 2024 on the 9th Cohesion Report,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 21 November 2024 entitled ‘A renewed Cohesion Policy post 2027 that leaves no one behind – CoR responses to the 9th Cohesion Report and the Report of the Group of High-Level Specialists on the Future of Cohesion Policy’,

– having regard to the report entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness – A competitiveness strategy for Europe’, published by the Commission on 9 September 2024,

– having regard to the agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

– having regard to the study entitled ‘Streamlining EU Cohesion Funds: addressing administrative burdens and redundancy’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union in November 2024,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2025/XXXX of the European Parliament and of the Council of [INSERT DATE] on the Border Regions’ Instrument for Development and Growth in the EU (BRIDGEforEU) [INSERT FOOTNOTE ONCE PUBLISHED IN OJ],

– having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions’ (COM(2022)0198),

– having regard to the opinion in the form of a letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (XXX),

– having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2021 on cohesion policy and regional environment strategies in the fight against climate change,

– having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on reversing demographic trends in EU regions using cohesion policy instruments,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 entitled ‘Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions,

– having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report,

– having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2023 on possibilities to increase the reliability of audits and controls by national authorities in shared management,

– having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2024 entitled ‘Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A10-0066/2025),

A. whereas cohesion policy is at the heart of EU policies and is the EU’s main tool for investments in sustainable economic, social and territorial development, and contributing to the Green Deal objectives, across the EU under its multiannual financial frameworks for the periods of 2014-2020 and 2021-2027; whereas cohesion policy, as mandated by the Treaties, is fundamental for a well-functioning and thriving internal market by promoting the development of all regions in the EU, and especially the less developed ones;

B. whereas cohesion policy has fostered economic, social and territorial convergence in the EU, notably by increasing the gross domestic products, for example, of central and eastern EU Member States, which went from 43 % of the EU average in 1995 to around 80 % in 2023; whereas the 9th Cohesion Report highlights that, by the end of 2022, cohesion policy supported over 4.4 million businesses, creating more than 370 000 jobs in these companies; whereas it also underlines that cohesion policy generates a significant return on investment, and that each euro invested in the 2014–2020 and 2021–2027 programmes will have generated 1.3 euros of additional GDP in the Union by 2030; whereas cohesion policy constituted, on average, around 13 % of total public investment in the EU;

C. whereas the Commission report entitled ‘The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward’, presented alongside the ninth Cohesion Report, underlines that EUR 24.6 billion, or 8 % of the rural development pillar of the common agricultural policy, is directed towards investments in rural areas beyond farming investments, setting the scene for a debate on the future of rural areas;

D. whereas between 2021 and 2027, cohesion policy will have invested over EUR 140 billion in the green and digital transitions, to help improve networks and infrastructure, support nature conservation, improve green and digital skills and foster job creation and services for the public;

E. whereas despite the widely acknowledged and proven positive impact of cohesion policy on social, economic and territorial convergence, significant challenges remain, marked notably by development disparities at sub-national level, within regions and in regions caught in a development trap, and by the impact of climate change, in terms of demography, the digital and green transitions, and connectivity, but also in terms of sustainable economic development, in particular in least developed regions and rural and remote areas;

F. whereas cohesion policy and sectoral programmes of the EU have repeatedly and efficiently helped regions to respond effectively to emergencies and asymmetric shocks such as the COVID-19 crisis, Brexit, the energy crisis and the refugee crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as natural disasters, even though it is a long-term, structural policy and not a crisis management instrument or the ‘go-to’ emergency response funding mechanism; whereas such crises have delayed the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds and whereas a considerable number of projects financed with Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds have been taken for the most part from projects that had been slated for investment under cohesion policy;

G. whereas despite measures already taken for the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods, the regulatory framework governing the use and administration of cohesion policy instruments and funds should be further simplified and interoperable digital tools better used and developed, including the establishment of one-stop digitalised service centres, with the objective of streamlining procedures, enhancing stakeholder trust, reducing the administrative burden, increasing flexibility in fund management and speeding up payments, not only for the relevant authorities but also for the final beneficiaries; whereas it is necessary to increase the scope for using funds more flexibly, including the possibility of financing the development of dual-use products; whereas it is of utmost importance to formulate any future cohesion policy with a strategic impetus throughout the funding period, which could, however, be reassessed at midterm;

H. whereas the low absorption rate of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy funds, currently at just 6 %, is not because of a lack of need from Member States or regions, but rather stems from delays in the approval of operational programmes, the transition period between financial frameworks, the prioritisation of NextGenerationEU by national managing authorities, limited administrative capacity and complex bureaucratic procedures; whereas Member States and regions may not rush to absorb all available funds as they anticipate a possible extension under the N+2 or N+3 rules;

I. whereas radical modifications to the cohesion regulatory framework, from one programming period to the next, contribute to generating insecurity among the authorities responsible and beneficiaries, gold-plating legislation, increasing error rates (and the accompanying negative reputational and financial consequences), delays in implementation and, ultimately, disaffection among beneficiaries and the general population;

J. whereas there is sometimes competition between cohesion funds, emergency funds and sectoral policies;

K. whereas demographic changes vary significantly across EU regions, with the populations of some Member States facing a projected decline in the coming years and others projected to grow; whereas demographic changes also take place between regions, including movement away from outermost regions, but are generally observed as movement from rural to urban areas within Member States, wherein women are leaving rural areas in greater numbers than men, but also to metropolitan areas, where villages around big cities encounter difficulties in investing in basic infrastructure; whereas the provision of essential services such as healthcare, education and transportation must be reinforced in all regions, with a particular focus on rural and remote areas; whereas a stronger focus is needed on areas suffering from depopulation and inadequate services, requiring targeted measures to encourage young people to remain through entrepreneurship projects, high-quality agriculture and sustainable tourism;

L. whereas taking account of the ageing population is crucial in order to ensure justice among the generations and thereby to strengthen participation, especially among young people;

M. whereas urban areas are burdened by new challenges resulting from the population influx to cities, as well as rising housing and energy prices, requiring the necessary housing development, new environmental protection and energy-saving measures, such as accelerated deep renovation to combat energy poverty and promote energy efficiency; whereas the EU cohesion policy should help to contribute to an affordable and accessible housing market for all people in the EU, especially for low- and middle-income households, urban residents, families with children, women and young people;

N. whereas effective implementation of the Urban Agenda for the EU can enhance the capacity of cities to contribute to cohesion objectives, thereby improving the quality of life of citizens and guaranteeing a more efficient use of the EU’s financial resources;

O. whereas particular attention needs to be paid to rural areas, as well as areas affected by industrial transition and EU regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, brain drain, climate-related risks and water scarcity, such as the outermost regions, and in particular islands located at their peripheries or at the periphery of the EU, sparsely populated regions, islands, mountainous areas and cross-border regions, as well as coastal and maritime regions;

P. whereas Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has created a new geopolitical reality that has had a strong impact on the employment, economic development and opportunities, and general well-being of the population living in regions bordering Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as candidate countries such as Ukraine and Moldova, which therefore require special attention and support, including by accordingly adapting cohesion policy; whereas this war has led to an unprecedented number of people seeking shelter in the EU, placing an additional burden on local communities and services; whereas the collective security of the EU is strongly dependent on the vitality and well-being of regions situated at the EU’s external borders;

Q. whereas the unique situation of Northern Ireland requires a bespoke approach building on the benefits of PEACE programmes examining how wider cohesion policy can benefit the process of reconciliation;

R. whereas 79 % of citizens who are aware of EU-funded projects under cohesion policy believe that EU-funded projects have a positive impact on the regions, which contributes to a pro-EU attitude;

S. whereas overall awareness of EU-funded projects under cohesion policy has decreased by 2 percentage points since 2021, meaning that greater decentralisation should be pursued to bring cohesion policy even closer to the citizen;

1. Insists that the regional and local focus, place-based approach and strategic planning of cohesion policy, as well as its decentralised programming and implementation model based on the partnership principle with strengthened implementation of the European code of conduct, the involvement of economic and civil society actors, and multi-level governance, are key and positive elements of the policy, and determine its effectiveness; is firmly convinced that this model of cohesion policy should be continued in all regions and deepened where possible as the EU’s main long-term investment instrument for reducing disparities, ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion, and stimulating regional and local sustainable growth in line with EU strategies, protecting the environment, and as a key contributor to EU competitiveness and just transition, as well as helping to cope with new challenges ahead;

2. Calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments, in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments, ensure complementarity of the various interventions and increase visibility and readability of EU support; in this context, notes that the RRF funds are committed to economic development and growth, without specifically focusing on economic, social and territorial cohesion between regions; is concerned about the Commission’s plans to apply a performance-based approach to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against a one-size-fits-all imposition of the model and expresses serious doubt about ideas to link the disbursement of ESIF to the fulfilment of centrally defined reform goals, even more so if the reform goals do not fall within the scope of competence of the regional level;

3. Is opposed to any form of top-down centralisation reform of EU funding programmes, including those under shared management, such as the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy, and advocates for greater decentralisation of decision-making to the local and regional levels; calls for enhanced involvement of local and regional authorities and economic and civil society actors at every stage of EU shared management programmes, from preparation and programming to implementation, delivery and evaluation, keeping in mind that the economic and social development of, and territorial cohesion between, regions can only be accomplished on the basis of good cooperation between all actors;

4. Emphasises that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) plays a key role, alongside cohesion policy funds, in supporting rural areas; stresses that the EAFRD’s design must align with the rules of cohesion policy funds to boost synergies and facilitate multi-funded rural development projects;

5. Is convinced that cohesion policy can only continue to play its role if it has solid funding; underlines that this implies that future cohesion policy must be provided with robust funding for the post-2027 financial period; stresses that it is necessary to provide funding that is ambitious enough and easily accessible to allow cohesion policy to continue to fulfil its role as the EU’s main investment policy, while retaining the flexibility to meet potential new challenges, including the possibility of financing the development of dual-use products, and to enable local authorities, stakeholders and beneficiaries to effectively foster local development; is of the firm opinion that the capacity to offer flexible responses to unpredictable challenges should not come at the expense of the clear long-term strategic focus and objectives of cohesion policy;

6. Underlines the importance of the next EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the mid-term review of cohesion policy programmes 2021-2027 in shaping the future of cohesion policy; reiterates the need for a more ambitious post-2027 cohesion policy in the next MFF 2028-2034; calls, therefore, for the upcoming MFF to ensure that cohesion policy continues to receive at least the same level of funding as in the current period in real terms; furthermore calls for cohesion policy to remain a separate heading in the new MFF; stresses that cohesion policy should be protected from statistical effects that may alter the eligibility of regions by changing the average EU GDP; reiterates the need for new EU own resources;

7. Proposes, therefore, that next MFF be more responsive to unforeseen needs, including with sufficient margins and flexibilities from the outset; emphasises in this regard, however, that cohesion policy is not a crisis instrument and that it should not deviate from its main objectives, namely from its long-term investment nature; calls for the European Union Solidarity Fund to be strengthened, including in its pre-financing, making it less bureaucratic and more easily accessible, in order to develop an appropriate instrument capable of responding adequately to the economic, social and territorial consequences of future natural disasters or health emergencies; emphasises the need for Parliament to have adequate control over any emergency funds and instruments;

8. Recognises the need to also use nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) 3 classification for specific cases, in a manner that recognises that inequalities in development exist within all NUTS 2 regions; is of the opinion that regional GDP per capita must remain the main criterion for determining Member States’ allocations under cohesion policy; welcomes the fact that, following Parliament’s persistent calls, the Commission has begun considering additional criteria such as greenhouse gas emissions, population density, education levels and unemployment rates, in order to provide a better socio-economic overview of the regions;

9. Stresses that the rule of law conditionality is an overarching conditionality, recognising and enforcing respect for the rule of law, also as an enabling condition for cohesion policy funding, to ensure that Union resources are used in a transparent, fair and responsible manner with sound financial management; considers it necessary to reinforce respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights, and to ensure that all actions are consistent with supporting democratic principles, gender equality and human rights, including workers’ rights, the rights of disabled people and children’s rights, in the implementation of cohesion policy; highlights the important role of the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in protecting the financial interests of the Union;

10. Calls for further efforts to simplify, make more flexible, strengthen synergies and streamline the rules and administrative procedures governing cohesion policy funds at EU, national and regional level, taking full advantage of the technologies available to increase accessibility and efficiency, building on the existing and well-established shared management framework, in order to strengthen confidence among users, thus encouraging the participation of a broader range of economic and civil society actors in projects supported and maximising the funds’ impact; calls for further initiatives enabling better absorption of cohesion funds, including increased co-financing levels, higher pre-financing and faster investment reimbursements; calls for local administration, in particular representing smaller communities, to be technically trained for better administrative management of the funds; stresses, therefore, the importance of strengthening the single audit principle, further expanding simplified cost options and reducing duplicating controls and audits that overlap with national and regional oversight for the same project and beneficiary, with a view to eliminating the possibility of repeating errors in subsequent years of implementation;

11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give regions greater flexibility already at the programming stage, in order to cater for their particular needs and specificities, emphasising the need to involve the economic and civil society actors; underlines that thematic concentration was a key element in aligning cohesion policy with Europe 2020 objectives; asks the Commission, therefore, to present all findings related to the implementation of thematic concentration and to draw lessons for future legislative proposals;

12. Acknowledges that the green, digital and demographic transitions present significant challenges but, at the same time, opportunities to achieve the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion; recognises that, statistically, high-income areas can hide the economic problems within a region; is aware of the risk of a widening of regional disparities, a deepening of social inequalities and a rising ‘geography of discontent’ related to the transition process; underlines the need to reach the EU’s sustainability and climate objectives, and to maintain shared economic growth by strengthening the Union’s competitiveness; calls, therefore, for a European strategy that guarantees harmonious growth within the Union, meeting the respective regions’ specific needs; reaffirms its commitment to pursuing the green and digital transitions, as this will create opportunities to improve the EU’s competitiveness; underlines the need to invest in infrastructure projects that enhance connectivity, particularly in sustainable, intelligent transport, and in energy and digital networks, ensuring that all regions, including remote and less-developed ones, are fully integrated into the single market and benefit equitably from the opportunities it provides; emphasises, in this context, the need to support the development of green industries, fostering local specificities and traditions to increase the resilience of the economic environment and civil society to future challenges;

13. Urges that the cohesion policy remain consistent with a push towards increasing innovation and completing the EU single market, in line with the conclusions of the Draghi report on European competitiveness; underlines, in the context of regional disparities, the problem of the persisting innovation divide and advocates for a tailored, place-based approach to fostering innovation and economic convergence across regions and reducing the innovation gap; calls for a stronger role for local and regional innovation in building competitive research and innovation ecosystems and promoting territorial cohesion; points to new EU initiatives, such as regional innovation valleys and partnerships for regional innovation, that aim to connect territories with different levels of innovation performance and tackle the innovation gap; considers that this approach will reinforce regional autonomy, allowing local and regional authorities to shape EU policies and objectives in line with their specific needs, characteristics and capacities, while safeguarding the partnership principle;

14. Is convinced that cohesion policy needs to continue to foster the principle of just transition, addressing the specific needs of regions, while leaving no territory and no one behind; calls for continued financing of the just transition process, with the Just Transition Fund being fully integrated into the Common Provisions Regulation and endowed with reinforced financial means for the post-2027 programming period; emphasises, nonetheless, the need to assess the impact of the Just Transition Fund on the transformation of eligible regions and, while ensuring it remains part of cohesion policy, refine its approach in the new MFF on the basis of the findings and concrete measures to ensure the economic and social well-being of affected communities;

15. 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 under Articles 174 and 175 TFEU; calls for the participation of the regions in the fulfilment of these objectives and for a stronger territorial approach; calls for a process of reflection on the concept of macroeconomic conditionality and for the possibility to be explored of replacing this concept with new forms of conditionality to better reflect the new challenges ahead;

16. Is concerned about the growing number of regions in a development trap, which are stagnating economically and are suffering from sharp demographic decline and limited access to essential services; calls, therefore, for an upward adjustment in co-financing for projects aimed at strengthening essential services; stresses the role of cohesion policy instruments in supporting different regions and local areas that are coping with demographic evolution affecting people’s effective right to stay, including, among others, challenges related to depopulation, ageing, gender imbalances, brain drain, skills shortages and workforce imbalances across regions; recognises the need for targeted economic incentives and structural interventions to counteract these phenomena; in this context, calls for the implementation of targeted programmes to attract, develop and retain talent, particularly in regions experiencing significant outflows of skilled workers, by fostering education, culture, entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems that align with local and regional economic needs and opportunities;

17. Recognises the importance of supporting and financing specific solutions for regions with long-standing and serious economic difficulties or severe permanent natural and demographic handicaps; reiterates the need for maintaining and improving the provision of quality essential services (such as education and healthcare), transport and digital connectivity of these regions, fostering their economic diversification and job creation, and helping them respond to challenges such as rural desertification, population ageing, poverty, depopulation, loneliness and isolation, as well as the lack of opportunities for vulnerable people such as persons with disabilities; underlines the need to prioritise the development and adequate funding of strategic sectors, such as renewable energy, sustainable tourism, digital innovation and infrastructure, in a manner that is tailored to the economic potential and resources of each region, in order to create broader conditions for endogenous growth and balanced development across all regions, especially rural, remote and less-developed areas, border regions, islands and outermost regions; recalls the importance of strong rural-urban linkages and particular support for women in rural areas;

18. Emphasises the need for a tailored approach for the outermost regions, as defined under Article 349 TFEU, which face unique and cumulative structural challenges due to their remoteness, small market size, vulnerability to climate change and economic dependencies; underlines that these permanent constraints, including the small size of the domestic economy, great distance from the European continent, location near third countries, double insularity for most of them, and limited diversification of the productive sector, result in additional costs and reduced competitiveness, making their adaptation to the green and digital transition particularly complex and costly; underlines their great potential to further develop, inter alia through improved regional connectivity, key sectors such as blue economy, sustainable agriculture, renewable energies, space activities, research or eco-tourism; reiterates its long-standing call on the Commission to duly consider the impact of all newly proposed legislation on the outermost regions, with a view to avoiding disproportionate regulatory burdens and adverse effects on these regions’ economies;

19. Underlines the fact that towns, cities and metropolitan areas have challenges of their own, such as considerable pockets of poverty, housing problems, traffic congestion and poor air quality, generating challenges for social and economic cohesion created by inharmonious territorial development; emphasises the need for a specific agenda for cities and calls for deepening their links with functional urban areas, encompassing smaller cities and towns, to ensure that economic and social benefits are spread more evenly across the entire territory; highlights the need to strengthen coordination between the initiatives of the Urban Agenda for the EU and the instruments of cohesion policy, favouring an integrated approach that takes into account territorial specificities and emerging challenges; calls, furthermore, for more direct access to EU funding for regional and local authorities, as well as cities and urban authorities, by inter alia widening the use of integrated territorial investments (ITI);

20. Stresses the need to continue and strengthen investments in affordable housing within the cohesion policy framework, recognising its significance for both regions and cities; highlights the need to foster its changes relevant to investing in housing beyond the two current possibilities (energy efficiency and social housing); emphasises the important role that cohesion policy plays in the roll-out and coordination of these initiatives; believes, furthermore, that it is important to include housing affordability in the URBACT initiative;

21. Stresses the strategic importance of strong external border regions for the security and resilience of the EU; calls on the Commission to support the Member States and regions affected by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in particular the regions on the EU’s eastern border, by revising the Guidelines on regional State aid, through tailor-made tools and investments under the cohesion policy, as well as supporting them to make the most of the possibilities offered by the cohesion policy funds, including Interreg, in a flexible way, to help cope with the detrimental socio-economic impact of the war on their populations and territories; calls, furthermore, for support to be given to regions bordering candidate countries such as Ukraine and Moldova to strengthen connections and promote their EU integration;

22. Highlights the added value of territorial cooperation in general and cross-border cooperation in particular; underlines the importance of Interreg for cross-border regions, including outermost regions; emphasises its important role in contributing to their development and overcoming cross-border obstacles, including building trust across borders, developing transport links, identifying and reducing legal and administrative obstacles and increasing the provision and use of cross-border public services, among others; considers Interreg as the main EU instrument for tackling the persistent cross-border obstacles faced by emergency services, and proposes that there be a more prominent focus on these services; underlines the fact that cross-border areas, including areas at the EU’s external borders, bordering aggressor countries often face specific challenges; believes that EU border regions, facing multiple challenges, must be supported and is of the opinion that they must be provided with increased means; welcomes the new regulation on BRIDGEforEU; emphasises the importance of small-scale and cross-border projects and stresses the need for effective implementation on the ground; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to actively support awareness-raising campaigns in bordering regions to maximise the impact of cross-border cooperation;

23. Recalls the need to ‘support cohesion’, rather than just rely on the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle, which means that no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities; calls for a stronger integration of these principles as cross-cutting in all EU policies, to ensure that they support the objectives of social, economic and territorial cohesion, as set out in Articles 3 and 174 TFEU; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to issue specific guidelines on how to implement and enforce these principles across EU policies, paying particular attention to the impact of EU laws on the competitiveness of less developed regions; reiterates that new legislative proposals need to take due account of local and regional realities; suggests that the Commission draw on innovative tools such as RegHUB (the network of regional hubs) to collect data on the impact of EU policies on the regions; to this end, underlines the need to strengthen the territorial impact assessment of EU legislation, with a simultaneous strengthening of the territorial aspects of other relevant policies; insists that promoting cohesion should also be seen as a way of fostering solidarity and mutual support among Member States and their regions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue their efforts regarding communication and visibility of the benefits of cohesion policy, demonstrating to citizens the EU’s tangible impact and serving as a key tool in addressing Euroscepticism; welcomes the launch of the multilingual version of the Kohesio platform;

24. Notes with concern the severe decline in recent years of adequate levels of national funding by Member States towards their poorer regions; recalls the importance of respecting the EU rule on additionality; calls on the Commission to ensure that national authorities take due account of internal cohesion in drafting and implementing structural and investment fund projects;

25. Insists that, in addition to adjusting to regional needs, cohesion policy must be adapted to the smallest scale, i.e. funds must be accessible to the smallest projects and project bearers; points out that their initiatives are often the most innovative and have a significant impact on rural development; reiterates that these funds should be accessible to all, regardless of their size or scope; approves of the Cohesion Alliance’s call for ‘a post-2027 Cohesion Policy that leaves no one behind’;

26. Stresses that delays in the MFF negotiations, together with the fact that Member States have placed a greater focus on the programming of the RRF funds, led to considerable delays in the programming period 2021-2027; stresses the importance of a timely agreement in the next framework, and therefore calls for the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and the budget negotiations to be finalised at least one year before the start of the new funding period so that Member States can develop their national and regional funding strategies in good time to ensure a successful transition to the next funding period and the continuation of existing ESIF projects;

27. 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.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission published the Ninth Cohesion Report on 27th March 2024, it is therefore the last one before the publication of the Commission proposals for a renewed regulatory framework for the cohesion policy post-2027, expected in 2025. In this context, the rapporteur finds it is particularly important to draw conclusions from the Ninth Cohesion Report’s findings on the progress of the economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU, against the background of developments and challenges it has been facing over the last years, and those it will likely need to face in the future.

The conclusions of the Ninth Cohesion Report confirm that the EU cohesion policy has a positive and significant impact in terms of convergence. It reduces the disparities among EU Member States and regions not only in terms of GDP level, but also in terms of reduction of unemployment and increase of productivity, it stimulates long-term growth and competitiveness, and it plays a key role in supporting public investment. Cohesion policy’s impact in the longer perspective proves its value as an important long-term investment tool.

Moreover, the Ninth Cohesion Report concludes, that the core principles, namely the bottom-up approach, multi-level governance, and partnership principle are of key importance. The Rapporteur is convinced, that these principles largely determine the policy’s effectiveness, and must be further enhanced. For that reason, it would be a mistake to apply to the cohesion policy a par excellence centralised model, like the one behind the RRF.

Cohesion policy has been a key part of the EU response to numerous crises over the past years. It proved to be a flexible and effective tool, adaptable to unexpected challenges, such as the coronavirus pandemic, or the multidimensional impact of Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. In the future, EU is likely to be confronted with further such challenges, coupled with the impact of natural disasters due to climate change. The Rapporteur is convinced that the policy’s flexibility is a necessity in this context. However, it is of fundamental importance, that the cohesion policy budget is ambitious enough to allow the policy to preserve at the same time its aforementioned core function as the EU’s long-term investment tool.

The subnational disparities and uneven convergence across the regions, with some of them stuck in development trap, remain an issue to be addressed. The Ninth Cohesion Report notes that for each region there is a diversity of reasons behind it. There is also a risk that future challenges might further widen the disparities, as they affect regions unevenly. Cohesion policy must therefore provide solutions allowing for a tailor-made approach to each region.

The Rapporteur notes with concern the situation of regions on the EU Eastern border affected by Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and insists on the need to ensure EU support for these regions, fully adapted to their specific needs.

Climate change is one of those challenges that affect regions unevenly, and the Rapporteur notes the related risk of deepening the disparities linked to the green and digital transition. In consequence, the Rapporteur firmly believes that just transition remains a valid concept, and its financing should be continued. Already for the years 2020-2027 the Cohesion Policy paved the way for supporting transition of formerly coal- and steel-dependent regions, by incorporating a transition-relevant objective into its programmes, and eventually also investing considerable funds into related fields. The Rapporteur notes that also other regions, including those affected by developments in the automotive sector, logistics or related industries and services, would require the same type of support in order to reduce the negative economic impacts of the deep transition process they are undergoing. Just Transition Fund, as one of the EU tools in this area, needs to be part of the cohesion policy, subject to its rules under a common provisions regulation, and with the appropriate level of funding.

The Rapporteur is aware that excessive administrative burden discourages the uptake of funds, and complex rules may contribute to higher error rates rather than an effective protection of EU financial resources. This implies, that there is a need for further simplification of cohesion policy rules and procedures. The Rapporteur insists however, that the simplification needs to benefit mainly the stakeholders implementing the funds, and modifications in this respect must fully preserve the shared management model.

This report comes as the first own-initiative report from REGI Committee in the 10th EP legislative term, just months before the European Commission puts forward its proposals for a new MFF as well as sectoral regulations.

Discussions on the potential evolution of cohesion policy are ongoing, and many stakeholders have already expressed their views. As co-legislator, the European Parliament has great responsibility in shaping the future of this policy, which has a direct impact on the lives and well-being of millions of citizens and businesses, and contributes to the socio-economic development and sustainability of the EU as a whole.

With this report, the Rapporteur intends to take stock of the positions expressed so far by our Parliament on the future of Cohesion Policy, in order to shape a position of the Parliament in the framework of the current discussions and in view of the future negotiations. In this context, the Rapporteur wishes to underline the importance of the work carried out by the members of the Committee on Regional Development in the past, in particular in the 9th term. His work builds on a number of European Parliament resolutions, such as the resolution on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report, the resolution on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions, or the resolution on cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States, among others.

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

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

19.2.2025

LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr AdrianDragoş Benea

Chair

Committee on Regional Development

BRUSSELS

Subject: Opinion on the ninth report on economic and social cohesion (2024/2107(INI))

Dear Chair,

Under the procedure referred to above, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has been asked to submit an opinion to your committee. At its meeting of 25 November 2024, our committee decided to send the opinion in the form of a letter.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted the letter on 19 March 2025, and decided to call on the Committee on Regional Development Committee, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into their motion for a resolution:

Yours sincerely,

Veronika Vrecionová

SUGGESTIONS

2. Points out that the public report on “The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward” presented alongside the 9th Cohesion report, while acknowledges that 24.6bn euro or 8% of the Rural Development pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy is directed towards investments in rural areas beyond farming, setting the scene for a debate on the future of rural areas;

3. Points out that, as the European Union is looking at the future, it is indeed essential to recall the role that rural areas play in Europe and the core importance of their link with urban areas; Calls for Cohesion Policy to be more inclusive and adjustable to rural areas, and attentive to the urban-rural link; deplores that the share of the budget devoted to Cohesion Policy has decreased in the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework and that the specific financial tools for the development of rural areas, which depend either on the Common Agricultural Policy (LEADER) or on their mobilisation by national managing authorities, are already insufficiently funded;

4. Reminds that the conclusions of the Group of high-level specialists on the Future of the Cohesion Policy underline the need for a simplification shock, especially for rural areas, which often face complex administrative barriers that limit access to EU funding;

5. Insists that in addition to adjusting to regional needs, the Cohesion Policy must be adapted to the smallest scale: funds must be accessible to the smallest projects and project bearers; points out that their initiatives are often the most innovative and have a significant impact on rural development; reiterates that these funds should be accessible to all, regardless of their size or scope; approves of the call of the Cohesion Alliance, "For a post-2027 Cohesion Policy that leaves no one behind";

6. Regrets that as matters stand at present, rural areas, which after all are showcases for Europe, are still too often marginalised and face ongoing challenges, such as demographic change, digital transition, the need for sustainable agriculture producing affordable and high-quality food, and adapting to climate change; deplores that these areas often suffer from insufficient policy coordination;;

7. Points out that other funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the Just Transition Fund (JTF) – offer opportunities and solutions for rural areas;

8. Calls on the Commission to simplify access to EU funding and procedures under a coherent and flexible approach to territorial development, particularly for rural areas, while maintaining the principles of multi-level governance and partnership, in particular in view of a future enlarged EU;

9. Proposes that all relevant directorates-general of the European Commission be involved in a territorial and social impact assessment of policies for which they are responsible at least twice per programming period; is convinced that these evaluations would establish a more precise baseline and identify ways to integrate the characteristics of rural areas into European policies more effectively;

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

11. 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;

12. 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;

13. 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: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The Chair in her capacity as rapporteur for opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

9.4.2025

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

28

4

1

Members present for the final vote

Pascal Arimont, Fredis Beleris, Dragoş Benea, Gordan Bosanac, Andi Cristea, Klára Dobrev, Klara Dostalova, Kathleen Funchion, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Gabriella Gerzsenyi, Sérgio Gonçalves, Krzysztof Hetman, Elsi Katainen, Isabelle Le Callennec, Nora Mebarek, Ciaran Mullooly, Elena Nevado del Campo, Andrey Novakov, Valentina Palmisano, Sabrina Repp, Marcos Ros Sempere, Antonella Sberna, Mārtiņš Staķis, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Francesco Ventola, Marta Wcisło

Substitutes present for the final vote

Sandro Gozi, Julien Leonardelli, Alexandra Mehnert, Ana Miranda Paz, Denis Nesci, Jacek Protas, Jessika Van Leeuwen

Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

Arno Bausemer

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Key to symbols: