- “An important feature is that it is implemented in shared management between the Commission and Member States, while respecting Member States institutional, legal and financial frameworks. This means that Member States, together with regional and local authorities, retain responsibility for the preparation and the implementation of programmes at the appropriate territorial level, in accordance with their institutional, legal and financial frameworks. All European regions are eligible for cohesion policy support, with the volume of financing reflecting the region's level of development and social challenges, and the allocation of funding is based on objective and comparable indicators in accordance with the Nuts. Classification of territorial units. However, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, member states are responsible for implementation at local level. Now cohesion policy recognises the importance of cultural and cultural and cultural heritage in socio economic and territorial development. We allocate around €5 billion from the eRDF to culture and heritage initiatives, and this is a highly visible part of the EU budget. This support focuses on equal access to culture, enhancing diversity, social inclusion and employment, while promoting resilience, sustainability and digital and green transformation in the sector. Measures include conserving cultural heritage, developing new accessible cultural services and infrastructure, using digital tools for accessibility and attracting new audiences and fostering cross-border cultural cooperation. In our view, all of this contributes to and can contribute to sustaining linguistic diversity. Finally, it was mentioned earlier the new idea of the right to stay. It's a new priority for cohesion policy and including future years, play an important part in contributing to helping maintain the diversity of Europe's communities, particularly in rural areas.”
Cohesion and rural funding · EU and national cultural identities · EU support for cultural and creative sector
- “Yes. Thank you and good afternoon. Honourable chairs, honourable members. Dear organization, organizers of the Citizens Initiative. I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to respond on some of the issues that have been raised today in the context of this public hearing on the European Citizens Initiative. Now, let me just repeat what was said by my EVP and the Commissioner. The Commission fully recognizes the importance of the concerns raised in this initiative, and is examining it carefully and thoroughly, respecting the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as well as the Union's rich cultural and linguistic diversity is one of the founding values of the European Union. In addition, any discrimination on the basis of membership of a national minority is explicitly prohibited by article 2.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, and this is an important point, I'd just like to recall that the Commission's ability to address the concerns raised is limited to what is provided for in the treaties and competences that are not conferred on the Union in the treaties remain with Member States. Now, the Commission registration decision, as mentioned specifically referred to article 177 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which concerns cohesion policy concentration. Consequently, here we are discussing issues falling within the ambit of strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion. Now, let me just highlight some of the features of cohesion policy that we think are particularly relevant to this issue. Cohesion policy is designed to benefit all EU regions and cities with the goals of increasing job opportunities, is fostering economic growth, promoting sustainable development and enhancing the quality of life of all EU citizens.”
Cohesion and rural funding · EU competences on human rights · EU engagement with citizens
- “Well, thank you, thank you, chair. And thank you, honourable members, for inviting the Commission to to give its input into this discussion. Um, first of all, I think, uh, we welcome the report and we had very good cooperation with the court on this and in particular, um, we were happy to see the recognition, uh, on the usefulness of CARE and also the support provided by the Commission. Just just a few elements of context. I mean, 2022 was a very difficult time. Um, there was a significant continuation of problems linked to the, uh, to the pandemic, uh, which had affected managing authorities. And we were faced with, um, a very clearly expressed need from stakeholders on the ground and in particular cities and public authorities that were Responding to this challenge to help them manage the problem. Now, our assessment was that we had the right toolkit, but the toolkit was not perhaps sufficiently accessible, um, or flexible to respond rapidly. And therefore, and this is an important point for us. We didn't change the scope or the content of the policy, but we simply made it easier to, to use by the, um, by, by the stakeholders that needed it most. And therefore the same thing applied to the, to our monitoring and evaluation framework, which we consider to be, uh, sufficiently robust, um, without adding the extra complexity of changing it at that point in time.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Conditions to access EU budget
- “Um, I think that as, as, as the court indicated, as an initiative, it was successful. Um, I think where we certainly agree with the court is on the need to have appropriate monitoring systems, and also the need to ensure that these monitoring systems are robust and resilient in the face of these types of changes. Our view on this particular initiative was that there was an element of proportionality involved. And to change the monitoring evaluation system for this, let's say the cost would be outweighed by the benefit. Now, in relation to the partial acceptance by the Commissioner. Yes. I just to say we agree with the the way in which it was presented by the court, but I would just like to, to to signal that one of the questions was whether we would have the, the basis to do an evaluation of the, of this measure. And I can inform you that as part of our ex-post evaluation, uh, we are doing some specific work on CARE, um, which will be included in the ex-post evaluation. And has done additional work in, let's say, in terms of the normal balance between the monitoring and evaluation we do. So we do additional work in the ex-post. So that's on the substance.”
Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
- “Uh, the controls and the audit of expenditure, um, continues as normal. The purpose of this was simply to improve the flexibility and the speed with which member states could access the money. Now, the same thing goes for the monitoring systems. The monitoring systems are the systems which were put in place, um, for the, uh, for all types of these measures. Uh, they produce information at the level of individual operations, and the member states have the same responsibilities in terms of ensuring that the expenditure is legal and regular. The Commission carries out audits on these and where problems are found, corrective measures will be taken. So I don't think that it is possible to, to to, let's say, on the basis of the Court of Auditors report, to say anything about the legality and regularity of the expenditure undertaken. This is a report which, if I understand correctly, is essentially about assessing the effectiveness. And as I have said, um, the Commission will continue to monitor this. And in addition, there will be a specific aspect of ex-post evaluation. So perhaps I finish there. Thank you.”
Discharge of EU institutions and agencies · Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Conditions to access EU budget
- “Yes, well. Thank you. Um, let me start with the point by Mr. Zhukovsky. Um, I think the Commission agrees that, um, cohesion policy requires modernization, not because it is not functioning, but because the demands of Europe call for more at the moment. Um, and I think that in respect of the specific question and as the in fact, our, our president has signaled is that we need a budget which is more flexible. And this also means a cohesion policy that is more flexible, but this should be not undertaken at the expense of the accountability of the budget, nor in terms of the information and assurance that we can give in particular to this institution. So I think we will be reflecting on this basis how to achieve greater flexibility, but at the same time strengthened accountability for the future. Now, just in terms of, um, of the initiative, I mean, there are many, many bigger questions here, which I think there are other places to discuss this in more detail than on the discussion of a a very targeted and well drafted report from the Court of Auditors. Now, I just wanted to say, um, that this initiative, um, changes no rules, all of the normal accountability mechanisms.”
Size of EU budget · Cohesion and rural funding · Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
- “Now, let me say a little bit about the way in which the policy operates as a key pillar of cohesion policy. The partnership principle requires member states to facilitate cooperation among diverse stakeholders. This involves this involvement, the involvement, excuse me, of representatives of different groups, including through civil society organisations, should provide balanced representation of local interests and our colleague from the Economic and Social Committee mentioned here in respect to the Code of Conduct on the partnership principle, which sets out standards for this. This is an essential part of our policy of its effective implementation and monitoring. Finally, I think another important point to note is that the legal arrangements for cohesion policy has significantly evolved since the initiative was registered in 2013, with a much stronger focus on non-discrimination. The introduction of enabling conditions, including the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the respect of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination in the selection process, are now key features of the cohesion policy implementation process. The Commission pays particular attention to fair and equal access to the EU budget, and in this respect, I would also like to highlight the recent changes to the the EU's financial regulation in terms of requirements to providing information on beneficiaries to improve transparency of interventions. These are all elements which will will be part of our Reflections on the on the submission and we will examine the initiative in depth and present, as was said by by my EVP on the 4th of September. Thank you for your attention.”
Cohesion and rural funding · EU engagement with civil society · Conditions to access EU budget
- “Now just to to come to the the question posed by the rapporteur, um, yes, um, cohesion policy has been modified, I would say many times, perhaps too many times, but it has responded to issues which were not only important in terms of crisis response, but important for cohesion, whether we look at CARE or or some of the other initiatives that we have undertaken. And in this, our consideration was very much whether the impact of not acting would, um, be problematic in terms of disparities or undo work that we have already done. Now, I think that the view of the Commission is also that this is not the optimal way of doing things. And for the next, um, MFF, we need a policy which is more flexible, but at the same time um is able to respond more quickly to the crisis. Now there are a number of different options which are being examined by by the commission at the moment. And it is certainly too early, um, for us to, um, to, for me to give you a clear indication of, of where this is going, but certainly I can I can assure you that when the Commission comes forward with its proposals for the MFF this summer, this is an issue which will be addressed fully. Thank you.”
Size of EU budget · Cohesion and rural funding · Conditions to access EU budget