Skip to content
DRAFT OPINION (2024/2106(INI))

On the possibilities for simplification of cohesion funds

BUDG-PA-770223

Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 4 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

This draft opinion proposes amendments to a report on simplifying cohesion funds, focusing on reducing red tape for beneficiaries and improving fund access. It stresses the need for flexibility within cohesion policy to respond to unforeseen situations without compromising its main objectives, and opposes top-down centralisation. It calls for measures to prevent double funding, ensure interoperability of data-mining tools, and align payment needs with MFF ceilings.

Committee position. The Committee on Budgets proposes amendments to the report, focusing on beneficiary-oriented simplification, flexibility within cohesion policy, and caution against centralisation.

Key points

  1. Notes that prioritising Recovery and Resilience Facility milestones delayed cohesion fund implementation and requests future burden be considered.
  2. Stresses that simplification should focus on beneficiaries, scrapping unnecessary red tape and ensuring better access to funds.
  3. Recalls that cohesion funds were repurposed for emergencies outside its scope, risking policy objectives; calls for limited flexibility within cohesion policy remit.
  4. Opposes top-down centralisation; notes positive elements in the Recovery and Resilience Facility but highlights traceability issues and Court of Auditors findings.
  5. Calls on the Commission to prevent double funding, ensure interoperability of data-mining tools, and balance simplification with budget protection, referencing Court of Auditors recommendations.
  6. Calls for an approach matching implementation cycles with lower payment needs at the start, aligned with MFF payment ceilings.
  7. Deletes a recommendation for a direct funding mechanism for cities in the next multiannual financial framework.
  8. Underlines that cohesion policy should promote growth, jobs, and SME support through public-private partnerships and synergies with other funds.

Who is affected

  • Beneficiaries of cohesion funds: simplification measures aim to reduce red tape and improve access.
  • National and regional administrations: burden from simultaneous implementation of Recovery and Resilience Facility and cohesion funds is acknowledged.
  • Cities: a previous proposal for direct funding in the next MFF is deleted.
  • SMEs: support is facilitated through synergies and public-private partnerships.