The European Parliament's Regional Development (REGI) committee on 2 June 2026 debated the draft opinion on the budget expenditure tracking and performance framework regulation, with 690 amendments tabled. The debate revealed a divide between those prioritising simplification for beneficiaries and those defending horizontal principles such as gender equality, climate, and 'do no significant harm' (DNSH).
Budget co-rapporteur Jean-Marc Germain (S&D) outlined a delayed timetable — draft report on 7 September, plenary vote in October or November — to incorporate committee inputs, stressing multilevel governance and performance indicators tailored to diverse regions. REGI rapporteur Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew) prioritised simplicity for beneficiaries, meaningful horizontal principles, and synergy between cohesion and competitiveness.
EPP shadow Isabel Le Callennec criticised the European Commission for undermining cohesion policy's DNA, warning that horizontal priorities and Annex 1 increase complexity and risk excluding projects. She called for stronger regional roles and provisions for outermost regions. S&D's Andi Cristea backed an efficient framework but opposed amendments weakening DNSH or adding red tape. Klara Dostalova (PfE) demanded subsidiarity, lighter rules for SMEs and local authorities, and reduced bureaucracy. Greens-EFA's V. Prebilič welcomed the rapporteur's approach but flagged concerns over DNSH's disappearance and urged transparency via the single gateway and a rural focus.
Commission representative Máté Tas defended the regulation as simplification, noting continuity with cohesion rules and that DNSH obligations stem from the Financial Regulation, with guidance to clarify compliance without extra burdens. García Hermida countered that simplification benefits member states more than final beneficiaries, a point the committee aims to correct. The opinion will be adopted on 1 September.
Stakeholder impact: Regional and local authorities face a trade-off between simpler rules and maintaining horizontal priorities that may add compliance costs. Managing authorities could see reduced administrative burden if simplification prevails, but may lose flexibility if horizontal priorities are diluted. SMEs and final beneficiaries stand to gain from lighter rules but risk exclusion if horizontal priorities are weakened. The Commission's position favours continuity, while the committee seeks to rebalance simplification toward final beneficiaries.