Sabrina REPP

Policy topics Sabrina REPP is active on

What Sabrina REPP has said (35)

• 2026-07-16 “(09:57:14 - 10:00:19): Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman, I will speak in German. Thank you very much to the 2 speakers who have given us a very good overview of the Just Transition Fund. I have a couple of questions to mister Voldarski because last year, my colleagues and I had the opportunity of being in Poland, in the East Of Poland, and we were able to see things firsthand. There are a number of important points you raised that I've been thinking a bit. How are we going to ensure that there is a transition which can take into consideration all the upheaval that's, happening now, and how do we ensure that, populists don't get the upper hand to make sure that everything stays as it is. So how can we ensure that we can organize these processes politically? In your view, how can we get this to work hand in hand? How can the EU help you in these transformations, in these transitions, but at the same time, bring people along? That's very important for me. And the Just Transition Fund is really the epitome of what we're trying to do in the EU to be proactive in our cohesion policy rather than being reactive to ensure that European funding is used to overcome the problems and challenges in regions. And I'd be interested when we look at the next MFF. This is the issue of the transition fund, and it's rather not, taking pride of place. So I'd like to know what effect will this have for you in the region? Because, obviously, you've mentioned the fact that these funds and mean and resources needed to be extended rather than cut back on and that the focus shouldn't be shifted onto other funds. So what's your view of this? When I was in Lublin, what really struck me was a transporter company. And in the eastern regions of of Poland, obviously, they're affected by the challenges of the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. And then with reference to the trans transformation, a number of processes were able to be accelerated. And we were saying that maybe in 20 or 30 years, something would need to be changed. But then because of the Russian war of aggression, there were decisions made. But this these decisions are facing challenges now because of the current situation. So how can we ensure that particularly in Eastern Poland, these challenges are better addressed and supported? Thank you very much for being here.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-16 “(11:46:30 - 11:49:56):Welcome. Just one or two seconds while you get your headset on. You're very welcome to the European Parliament. We're very pleased that you're here. And of course, in RGGI, we focus on how the negotiations in the next budget will go. And, of course, Ireland will have an important role and function here. Cyprus presented a proposal. And for us, we have the question, how in the Irish presidency will you work forward? A number of proposals for cuts were made. We see a shrinking budget in cohesion. We consider it drastic, and we don't think it's good that cohesion funds are being cut. Before you came, we had two representatives of Ireland who very clearly described and portrayed how well the cohesion funds were used in Ireland. So what's your view as regards to the cuts in cohesion funds and the impact it will have? And how will you ensure that cohesion resources will be increased? Or on the contrary, will you continue to enforce greater cuts? I must be clear and say that we are facing a challenge that particularly the commission and the member states, when it comes to competitiveness, we want to invest in this. But then we have new priorities that we don't invest in. And we don't want the investments to go through cohesion, and we don't want the regions to be involved. So I'd like to say then the funds that are being cut are not being benefited from by member states or regions. There's no compensation there. So these funds won't exist to move forward these projects. So we need to find answers because for having a hearing about transition and acceptance among the local people. And in all of the challenges we're facing, it's clear that we need to focus on the people in the field and at the regional level. And this worked very well with cohesion. So we're very interested in knowing how you're going to handle this, what position you're going to take, and how can we work together to also present these plans nationally and regionally. We want to have investments in infrastructure, in people at the local level, and this is precisely part of your portfolio. So you can count on us as allies as long as you don't just continue having cuts. We need an EU which is fit for purpose that we can do all the tasks that we've set out for ourselves, but this is only doable if we have sufficient funding. And this is why the colleague from France's question is very important. What's your view on own resources? How can we establish a stable budget to make the EU fit for purpose? And I'd be interested in knowing what your position is to find a balance between what was invested in the past and how we want to shape our society in future. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-16 “(11:00:39 - 11:05:35): Thank you very much. I I think what I wanted to say in summing up is that with the JTF, we see that it worked. We see that it worked on the ground, and we see also that the in terms of outputs, it worked. It accelerated. We've proved that it accelerated the transition of call out and accelerated the decarbonization. So the the the objective and the the governance tool, behind it, it works the commitment at regional level for, a a pathway a transition pathway was important and it succeeded. And having said that, the transition challenge is still out there. We still have 31 active coal mines in Europe in 11 member states. We have about 200,000 people still employed in coal mines and thermal power plants and much more in carbon intensive industry. So the challenge is there. And, therefore, we'd strongly strongly encourage member states to continue with their work on just transition. The framework is there. The the framework the entire architect proposal on the commission for the architecture in the future is obviously different from from what it is now. However, there is a specific objective on just transition. Therefore, member states and regions can program in the same way that they've done now, actions, investments and reforms in just transition and would strongly, strongly encourage you to do this. Obviously, this is a different it's a different animal that has been proposed in the future. It is not a specific fund anymore, but that is also not the idea of the of the entire commission proposal for the national and regional partnership plans. The idea is to indeed merge or bring together 14 funds under one common rule book. So it's not for or against just transition fund as such. The idea is to bring everything together and make it simpler. We've heard it. I think, miss Hook mentioned it, but I think it was mentioned before as well that that the administrative capacity that was involved in needed to implement the Just Transition Fund, it was in addition to the ERDF and in addition to the RF and the people on the ground in the regions that had to implement that had all of a sudden to implement three funds. This is also one of the reasons why we wanted to move away from that. And it doesn't mean that because there is no fund anymore, there shouldn't be a just transition process on the contrary. Also in the future, this will be open to all of them as you very well know, and I think we've heard it from the region of Lublin, from the mayor, that this time, it was focused on those with the the most that were most affected, but also on those regions that were ready to commit to a transition path. And only those regions that were ready to commit to a transition path were and that also codified that in a transitional plan, were able to get support from the Just Transition Fund. In the future, this will be open. However, we'd very, very, very strongly encourage you to build on what you've built up already and to build on the just transition plans that you have done already. And I said it in the in the beginning to also take the take up this challenge again to define a vision with the people on the ground. So to use the governance structure of this territorial just transition plans also for the future despite the fact that at the current commission proposal, this is not an obligation. I think this has proven a good instrument and it has proven to deliver. Maybe just to sum up because I just only have three minutes. I just wanted to say that the so this all of this is possible. We strongly encourage you to do this. And for as you very well know, there is still a current period. There is a very we heard it a very, strict deadline payment deadline of the NGU. We are on a daily basis working with your, regional administrations on the ground trying to find the the the best solutions to make this, to make it possible for you to send as much payment that payments as, until the end of the year as possible. We see that in terms of projects, the projects are out there. I think it's in terms of getting all of this in and getting it to us. And I think we're working very, very closely together. This is just a just wanted to say that please, please also to your constituency pass the message that we're out there to help to make sure that also the current just transition fund is still implemented well. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-07-16 “(10:56:58 - 11:00:25): I'm trying to be as fast as I can. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much for visiting us here today. The this second session does told us does show us how useful it is. And I'd also like to thank you for spending time to come here, and I'd like to come straight back to the point. Mister Schroeder, at the beginning of your presentation, you said, that with regard to these transition areas, regions, there where there are years when there are elections, there's a lot more pressure. And so we really have to ask ourselves the question with regard to transition if maybe this means that the transition has already failed or not. And what would be interesting for me is you gave an example about the with the form Ratana and Ferropolis and how these projects can, succeed and create, wealth. But if we look at surveys in the area of Saxony Anhalt, we see that 41% of the people in Saxony Anhalt are actually considering voting for the Alternativa for Deutschland. And, I'd like to know, in your opinion, what is the role of these projects can play in regions such as yours to give a con a contrary example to people and show them that they should really get on board? Then there was a lot of technical matter in your present presentation, and you were talking about European mining. And then you said that this was part of our European identity and that, we need to be more open to approach that's more, results based and with with a good exit strategy and also covering various areas. I wrote this all down. But what I'd really like to know is these ideas of yours with regard to the JFT. I think that, in fact, it's what we need generally when it comes to development in Europe. We need to have a more flexible approach, and we also really need to look at the needs of those who are getting this funding. And so I'd like to ask you, what is the special aspect of, European funding, development funding? So what's the difference between German, funding and European funding? Maybe you think there's no difference as long as there is funding, but maybe there is something that the Europeans have done differently or that they could do differently or that they have a different focus. I'd be interested in that. And also, missus Hooks, thank you for your, presentation. You were speaking about, the GTF as well. And what is your position with regards to the transition fund in your four regional and local. And we here at European level see that the that there's an the mentality has to be adapted and changes have to be made. Do we have to invest in all of this area such as green, transition? But you're, you're going to be presenting this as part of your few future plans. But so what are your recommendations going to be with regards to all of this? Do you think it's something that should be cross cutting or it needs to be focused? Thank you very much.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-14 “(16:50:08 - 16:53:20): Thank you. This isn't an easy situation. We're shouldering a great deal of responsibility. We need to get the next MFF over the line. At the same time, we're contending with a proposal that we think needs to be improved, to say the least. In fact, we find it acceptable. Let me go into details. It's really important that we have strong regions for a strong Europe. So if we look at the proposal, the member states have to ask themselves whether they can accept the amount of money that's going to go to the regions. We need to have multilevel governance. We need binding involvement of local and regional players. They shouldn't just be dependent on the national capitals. We need to involve them in planning, in implementation, in monitoring, and in amendment. We should also involve civil society, unions, and other civil society partners. So we need to have a strong ESF. What about the architecture of the MFF? Under cohesion policy, it's important that we have reliable funding for recipients of EU funds. That means we need to have clearly defined goals under each funds. That includes under ESF, under EFRA, and Interreg, and under cohesion. Without those clear goals, there will be a great deal of uncertainty on the ground. Without that, we won't be doing anything good for recipients if we cause a lot of uncertainty for them. That's why we continue to be against the single fund. We want to have ring fencing for each area and clarity for recipients of funding. Now Norbert did mention this, but we have to ask ourselves how we're going to treat the, rural areas. You know, there's this contentious issue between council and commission. Now are we going to maintain the 2 pillar structure under the CAP? If yes, are we still going to have specific funding for rural areas? We therefore need to have an earmarked budget for, rural areas under the CAP and under cohesion. That's why LEDA is so important. We have to ensure that LIDAR has its own budget. A minimum budget needs to be enshrined for LIDAR. At the end of the day, we mustn't forget the lags, the local action groups. They need to be strengthened. So let me be clear. We need to have strong regions for a strong Europe. We need to involve, local actors. Then we need to have earmark earmarking for the separate, funds, ESF, Interreg, etcetera. And then we also mustn't forget the performance framework. We need to have security of planning and flexibility, expect especially when we're dealing with more vulnerable target groups. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-08 “(09:48:41 - 09:49:42): Competitiveness, social work, development, research, humanitarian assistant, we want to do all of these things, but we don't get more money to achieve those goals. Now let's look at the EU budget. The EU budget that we are talking about for the future is only going to be half as big as the German budget. If we're gonna do anything, we need funding. If you're gonna make horizontal cuts, if you're gonna cut, cohesion funds, then you're sending the wrong signs. In the EU treaties, it says that we must strive towards more more cohesion, and we must invest in weaker areas. So we need to have cohesion. In these, challenging times, we're drifting apart, we can't allow that. We want to do our job well. We want to do our task well. We want a union that can act. That means that the member states needs to be held accountable. The EU member states must provide sufficient funds for the budget. The EU member states must ensure that, they, do this, and they can't ask for more cuts.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2025-10-08 “E-003975/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission put forward a Regulation for the Erasmus+ 2028-2034 1 in line with the principles for simplification of the overall multiannual financial framework and quality legislation. Europe-wide networks and European non-governmental organisations, which pursue a general EU interest, are essential for policy development and qualitative implementation of initiatives, in the fields of education and training, youth and sport. Support to these entities will be possible under the second pillar of the programme ‘Capacity-building support’. The proposed merge of the European Solidarity Corps with the Erasmus+ programme will create a one-stop shop, more comprehensive and coherent framework encompassing formal, non-formal, and informal learning opportunities for young people, aiming to boost skills development, engagement, solidarity and social cohesion. Volunteering and solidarity are clearly highlighted in the proposed Erasmus+ Regulation, with dedicated recitals, objectives in Article 3, and actions. The Commission’s proposal foresees that volunteering activities currently supported under the European Solidarity Corps will be integrated into the first pillar of the future programme, ‘Learning opportunities for all’, while support measures will be financed under the ‘Capacity-building support’ pillar. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0549.”
  EU volunteering programs
• 2025-06-18 “E-002447/2025 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission The Kyrgyz Republic is a key partner for the EU in Central Asia, a region of growing geopolitical relevance. Human development, including education, is one of the three priority areas of the EU’s Multiannual Indicative Programme with Kyrgyzstan 1 . The current Budget support programme 2 on education underscores the EU’s commitment to inclusive, quality education and the development of digital, media and green skills. At regional level, the EU fosters youth skills and employability through the DARYA project (Youth technical skills improvement: Dialogue and action for resourceful youth in Central Asia) 3 , while Erasmus+ provides learning mobilities for Kyrgyz students as well as capacity building opportunities for Kyrgyz universities. Regarding the request to establish a ‘European university’, the Commission does not intend to pursue this initiative, as was already communicated to the Kyrgyz authorities. The Commission focuses on providing comprehensive support to the education sector as a whole rather than funding individual academic institutions, whose long-term sustainability may rely heavily on continued external financing. This systemic approach is considered more effective and impactful for strengthening the education sector overall. Moreover, the high costs associated with creating a new university would significantly limit the resources available for other key Global Gateway investment priorities 4 already identified in close coordination with the Kyrgyz authorities (transport, renewable energy, etc.). 1 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/mip-2021-c2021-8987-kyrgyz-republicannex_en.pdf. 2 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/countries/kyrgyzstan_en (attachment under Annual Action Plan 2021 for Kyrgyzstan). 3 https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/what-we-do/darya-dialogue-and-action-resourceful-youth-central-asia. 4 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/global-gateway-commissioner-sikelareinforces-eu-central-asia-partnership-boost-prosperity-2025-03-20_en.”
  EU-Kyrgyzstan relations · EU policy on Central Asia
• 2025-05-14 “E-001919/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ regulation 1 foresees a budget distribution across its sectors and between management modes. No fixed budget is allocated to learning mobility and cooperation projects within sectors. Instead, the Regulation envisions expanding learning mobility opportunities to extend its reach and satisfy the demand. On this basis, the Commission has prioritised support for learning mobility 2 , as endorsed by the Programme Committee. The European Parliament 3 further called to keep Erasmus+ close to the people and ensure it remains a ‘citizens’ programme’ offering quality education and mobility opportunities for young people and learners of all ages. This approach was supported in recent consultations 4 . Between 2021 and 2024, the average success rate of Key Action 2 cooperation partnerships in higher education was 31% (total grant amount: EUR 446 million), in line with the period 2017-2020 (32%, EUR 416 million granted). This rate is higher compared to the success rate of cooperation partnerships across sectors (21%). Also, national agencies can reallocate budgets with a specific margin based on assessed needs. Transnational cooperation remains key to Erasmus+, supporting modernisation, skills development, and the green and digital transitions. Together with other forms of partnerships, Cooperation Partnerships contribute to these objectives, driving reforms and contributing to the Union of Skills 5 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of 20 May 2021. 2 During the Covid-19 pandemic allocations for cooperation was temporarily increased due to restrictions on mobility. 3 Resolution of 16 January 2024 on the implementation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13454-Erasmus+-2021-27-interimevaluation-Erasmus+-2014-20-final-evaluation_en. 5 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/union-skills_en.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• 2025-03-20 “E-001200/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU) is funded through the Erasmus+ programme. This aligns with the programme’s goals to promote youth participation, citizenship and inclusive, high-quality education and training. Funding decisions are based on the extent to which an organisation’s activities align with the objectives and priorities of the programme. The Commission is not in a position to assess the organisational structure or internal decision-making rules of an organisation. According to EU law, the content of education and the organisation of the national educational systems (including the development and organisation of student representation) fall within Member States’ competence. The Commission does therefore not intend to establish a pan-European school student union. However, the Commission will encourage OBESSU to expand by including more national school student unions in their membership. We note and welcome that a goal of OBESSU in their Development Strategy 2025-2029 is to ‘expand the membership to new countries in a sustainable way’. The Commission will also encourage Member States to establish democratic school student representation structures in order to strengthen student voice in decisions related to education. Furthermore, the Commission promotes democratic school student and youth representation structures through the EU Youth Stakeholders Group 1 . OBESSU is one of the organisational members of the Group 2 . Other members include the European Students’ Union (ESU) and the European Democrat Students (EDS). All EU national youth councils are members of the Group. Students take part in individual or organisational capacity in many of the actions of the Commission dedicated to young people, among them the youth policy dialogues with Commissioners 3 and the EU Youth Dialogue 4 . 1 https://youth.europa.eu/strategy/euyouthstrategygroup_en. 2 https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/EU-Youth-Stakeholders-Group---List-of-selectedorganisations_en_0.pdf. 3 https://youth.europa.eu/youth-policy/dialogues_en. 4 https://youth.europa.eu/eu-youth-dialogue_en.”
  Focus of EU policy on education (shaping workers vs citizens)
• “No worries. Thank you very much. Three concrete points. You know, it's always the same when we talk about a performance based approach. We want long term investment. We have to enable that. But not everything that is long term produces immediate results. If we want to enable projects under cohesion policy and at the same time we want to measure its performance, then within cohesion policy, we have to have the right instruments to do that measurement. I really want to thank you for what you've said. It's important to look at the calendar. We're hearing about a mid-term review. We had the discussion on the mid-term review. There is this issue of the logic of performance. You know what, if you don't immediately have funds available, you know you haven't spent half of the funds. And there are reasons for that. So then how do you measure it? So it's important to talk about these kinds of things. We're hearing okay. Well half of the funds haven't been used so we'll redirect that money. So it's important to look at that as the parliament. Then when it comes to monitoring and gathering of data, I spoke to a local councillor recently who said we are getting access to EU funds, rural development funds, but you have to provide a lot of data, and the local councillor said there was no problem providing all that data, but she wanted to know what happens with that data.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. Dear commissioners, it's good that today we are having the opportunity to talk to each other. Budget policy has always a question of setting priorities. So I think it's particularly important that we start with it from the beginning to talk with each other. We see this with cohesion policy. It is about supporting the weaker people in the European Union. So we have to that has to be put into new priorities to do with competition and defence. So these long term objectives which have been put forward are put forward for cohesion policy should not be replaced with short term objectives, political objectives. So I think we have to be clear about that, that we are looking at real reductions in the money available for cohesion policy. And we can see above all that there is a there is promises being made to agriculture, and this is being taken away from cohesion. And we should fight together to prevent that happening. And we also have to talk about how various Regions should be specifically identified, named, and the they should have their own budgetary line. In the future, they should retain that. And I think it means that programs such as the European Social funds.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you very much. I'd like to thank our guests. It's a joy that that we have you here today. And congratulations that you've been so active and for such a long time. Um, in the euro region issue this Trans regional cooperation is so important in order to promote a European identity. I come from the northeast of Germany and there we see that with the euro regions, there are a number of different challenges. And of course, the cooperation over many years has has been extremely important. We see what a wonderful example euro region activities have been over these last 50 years. And could you tell us a little bit about with the expansion to the East, what sort of challenges do you see there? What sort of indications do you have about what will happen? What sort of funds will be earmarked in the MFF for trans cross-border cooperation in the East? Uh, the rural areas and regions that are dependent on rural regions. You made mention of those. Now, I think that in this cross-border cooperation. These rural areas are extremely important. And in the MFF we've seen that this particular perspective is missing. Or rather it's not on the forefront. So I'd like to find out what your view is and what we can do in order to include these rural regions in cross-border cooperation, and how this will all be included in the MFF. You also mentioned that with regard to these particular cross border cooperations that are extremely important, that it be implementable.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Um, so budget, uh. But, but is there but what about implementation? It's important to have less red tape. And in the restructuring as well, we've seen that, uh, it's very important that we include smaller communities, smaller regions as well, that they be able to be able be able to participate as well. So small communities, regions, rural areas, uh, very, very important to provide the necessary funds so that they can forge these types of cross-border cooperations. Now, Interreg, you said it's extremely important. We're all in agreement. It's important. Um, it's we feel that, uh, that it obtained greater gravity, uh, this program as well. Uh, and, uh, I think we've also seen that with the various majorities that exist in the parliament as well, that the question of cross-border cooperation is under increasing pressure. And the Interreg program is one that continues to be extremely important. Do you feel and dealing with the challenges that we have, we feel that indeed it is particularly now with climate change as well. We need financial cooperation. We need to work together on important issues. For example, how do we overcome unemployment? Or how do we facilitate to create those necessary green areas as well? So this type of cooperation within Interreg, it's important for these to become increasingly important. Now how do you see the MFF in in this particular perspective as well as concerns Interreg. Um. Will there be increased resources for Interreg in order to be able to overcome these challenges in the future once again within the framework of Interreg. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “We have to look at what we're doing with this data. What is the commission actually doing with the data? How is the commission processing this data? How is this data contributing to different processes? So there's a big gap here. Data is gathered. But then what do we actually do with that data. What are the actual effects? What are the goals that we're pursuing? And then still on the subject of cohesion funds, we perhaps we need to shift our view. We don't want to we don't want to support projects that are unimportant. So we have to really ask what we're doing with data that's gathered. We need transparency for the recipients, and then we need to use that data for our policy making. Otherwise, what's the point of gathering the data at all?”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “(11:00:03 – 11:03:19): Thank you very much, and thank you very much to the rapporteurs for this draft on the NRPP. So I'd like to congratulate you that we have really lived up to our promises that we would improve the Commission's proposal. And nevertheless, I think we have to continue in our further work to see how we can make some fundamental improvements. So here, I'm talking from the point of view of regional development. But as my colleague, Mister Linz, has said that we've been able to move some articles concerning agriculture, I think it's important that the cohesion funds aspects are treated in the same way so that we don't want to just have everything thrown in the same pot. It's important that we have to try to ensure that cohesion is a single standalone policy area. So it's important that we have to keep maintain that, and it's also important that they're not played out against one another. So it's important to do that because that's how we achieve best success in rural areas and that we have it opens up also measures for the agricultural sector. So this is something that we really want to support in the future. And I think the report strengthens the level of regional participation, but we have to make the partnership, regional partnership aspect, obligatory vis-à-vis the national levels. We have to ensure that all the partners are truly equally involved, and we don't see the social aspects in this proposal being taken into account sufficiently. So I think we should raise the percentage foreseen for social aspects. And another point that's very important to us is the parliamentary control. And I think there are a few places that the ability of the member states to take action and the Commission have been strengthened. However, the European Parliament is not enjoying the same privileges in its role of maintaining control. So I don't think that's suitable because especially in the area of regional development and agriculture that the Parliament is really sitting at the table to have input. That's very important, and we have to say very clearly, of course, we have to have better earmarking and ring fencing. However, we have to really look very specifically at how we can set up frameworks to ensure that those programs are carried out because I think we have to improve ensure that what's done worked well in the past is continuous.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds · Cohesion and rural funding
• “These have to be earmarked specifically and not disappear somehow into the piece. So we have this framework of cohesion which should be taken out of these performance principle. For example, if you have a cycle path which is built on a main road, which gets my child to school safely, well, that has an it has an endless value for me and we can't talk about what it produces or performs. So in terms of flexibility last week I was talking with farmers last week and they don't wish necessary to have more flexibility, but what they want is to be able to plan ahead. They and with the MF Everything is continually being restructured and that is what people need. They need to give. We need to give them confidence. They need to be able to plan. So whether you're talking about the social area there, it won't be possible to compensate what they lose at a regional level or at a national level. It won't happen. So when we look at the rural areas and the projects that are in time for cohesion in Europe, we have to continue to fight for those. Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds · Cohesion and rural funding
• “I can just echo what previous speakers have said. We need to be honest here. 14% social is not just 14% ESF. Plus, we need to be specific how much money will trickle down to the ESF? We represent people, people on the ground who are really worried about how things will proceed after 2028 if measures can still be promoted or not. In this proposal, we are saying 14% social, but there's uncertainty here and the budget. With the MFF, we have to really give people perspectives for the future. The ESF projects are some of the most successful EU projects. We have to ensure and guarantee to them that we're going to continue post 2028, not just saying 14% social and then mixing everything up. And how do we ensure that that this isn't just a an appendix to other programs? Would that have social measures in them? How can we manage to have the simplification and flexibility and plan ability and personally speaking, and I think I could speak on behalf of my colleagues. The ESF is something that's really close to our heart, and it brings Europe together. And this 14% on for social aspects is not the ESF.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to respond to some things that have been said up until now, and begin by saying that the Commission has made it very clear that there are certain things that are being kept and other things are being changed. So I would like to focus our perspective of, oh, if we look at the report by the court, some of the not so good things are actually being kept rather than changed. And there's quite a lack of balance between what's being changed and what's being kept. If we take a closer look at their report, it's quite clear that there is a greater administrative administrative burden that there is. The Flexibilization is affecting as well, the ability to plan. And we're not actually sure what criteria will lead to funds being dispersed at the end of the day. So the question is, how are we actually. Supposed to understand these criteria? The commission doesn't seem to be able to make any movement in a particular direction, despite all of what's been said. So we want some as much. Once again, must call that if we want to make sure that we take into account the benefits of the people who are the beneficiaries. Of course, it's good for the commission if things are more simpler, but us, as representatives of the Parliament, is that we want to make sure that we create a budget that actually reaches the beneficiaries properly in the way that they want.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much indeed. I'll speak German. Apologies. Sorry for my delay. You know, we have lots of meetings in the European Parliament, but I did really want to be here and talk about the ECI on cohesion policy. So thank you much indeed for your commitment. Thank you. Organisers. In cohesion policy there should be a lot more anchored there. We are when it comes to people in regions. Uh, cohesion policy should be there deciding what decisions what measures would better work for them. And an elemental a key point of that. Uh, well, that's going to be key for the next MFF. Unfortunately, the Commission is planning the opposite. I centralise and cohesion monies and therefore weakening the regions and therefore people in the regions, you know, working for better cooperation, better living conditions. All of that is weakened. So for you, for the ECI, you know you're looking at the next MFF. Mff will know as of mid-July what the Commission is planning. But, uh, we do need to make sure we strengthen the role of regions. We've heard about Interreg. That's a program that's based on regional cooperation and that has worked there can only work there. So what will happen with this project in the future if it becomes centralized Realized and not about young people. In the committee. We talk about how we can keep young people in the rural areas, in the regions.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. The regional perspectives on agriculture. I can just support what my previous speaker said. Agriculture and cohesion policy are two divided areas and shouldn't come from the same tap. In terms of the funding, we can't offset what should be in the second pillar with agriculture. The focus on agricultural areas. Environmental measures. At the end of the day. Cohesion policy cannot offset these problems. We have to be clear about this. Um, then. We have the challenges as well, um, of major companies and holdings that are going to be severely impacted. We need a proposal which has a balance for the EU budget from my region. Half of all direct payments would not be made to farmers. And my region is very agricultural. And at the end, this is going to have a massive impact on on agriculture and on farmers if they don't have the direct payments. We're going to have massive problems from 2028, not just in terms of confidence and trust of people, but economic problems as well, in terms of increasing uncertainty, food insecurity and providing food security within the EU, which is key. And agricultural businesses will, uh, will go bust if we go down this, um, this road. Rural areas is something I'd like to focus on as that's one of the key points for this committee. We need concrete earmarking for rural areas. The 10% rule needs to be guaranteed. So we're not playing off agriculture and cohesion policy against each other. We should be trying to strengthen rural areas. If we're talking about the different funds. They all promote rural areas and perhaps they need to be managed more effectively and better coupled.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much for being here, Commissioner. Thank you. There are a couple of concrete points I'd like to go in. In the MFF proposal from the commission. There won't be more funds available in the future if we're adding more priorities, such as supporting towns and cities, than in times of increasing division. That this is, um, this is offset somehow. So in the coming MFF, how are you going to make sure that this doesn't happen? Then there's the question of how you will guarantee. And you're talking here about this top down approach. Um, I'd be interested. How will we manage in these national plans? How will we manage to make sure that towns and cities can work with regions on what they invest in without it, leading to centralisation? How can we strengthen prospects for towns and cities? And then there's the relationship between cities and small towns and cities in rural areas. Obviously, this is a major question of investment. If we have cohesion resources that are going into large cities and industrial centres, then that's not what cohesion policy was designed for. It was designed for supporting the weaker areas. And it's important that Smaller towns and smaller authorities do gain access to these resources. And I'd like to come back to the question to Miss Caruso's question. Um. The relationship to the competitiveness fund. How do you see the roles of towns and cities in terms of the competitiveness fund? Because the discussion has to be whether money will come from the cohesion Fund or will it come from the competitiveness Fund, particularly at a time where we have a smaller budget for cohesion? Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you very much, chairman. So, please, uh, please put your headphones on and wasting three seconds of my speaking time to allow you to put them on. There are three big issues that I've developed. One is trust, the other is young people. And then the third is the ticking time bomb. So let's put it all together. You spoke a lot about trust and confidence. How do we ensure that there's more trust in public media and broadcasters? But we also heard that people's behavior is changing. In our cult committee, we recently heard about young people and how young people trust influencers more than journalists. So how do we regain trust, particularly the trust of young people? Then let's turn our focus to older people. And older people do also use a social media. So how do we create trust between generations? Because I think there's a generational gap, a generational issue here. Then there's the issue of media competence, which we can't overlook. Then our last question. You've said that perhaps it's already too late. Are we lagging behind too much in your view? What should we do immediately so that we can reverse the trends you've pinpointed? Because if we look at Romania and the election results there, I think we're already seeing what you've been talking about.”
  EU public communication strategy
• “How do we do that? To make sure that the results are better? We have the leader program, which is excellent, but the member states. Are wondering if it's going to continue. Some are saying, yes, we're going to continue with it. Others are saying, well, we won't put as much into it. And I've said this with ESF before, we've got really successful programs. We need to be more successful, we need to be more flexible, and we need to simplify. Yes, but it shouldn't lead to the case where successful measures and programmes are not going to be secured for the future. As the EU, we have a responsibility to people to make sure that things do happen in rural areas And I can't see that in this proposal. If we have this 10% roll rule, how do we ensure that it's going to go into agriculture? Or what if it ends up being put into infrastructure? These areas shouldn't be played off one against the other. That's why we need clarity. Agriculture and cohesion. If we're saying we want to have separate budgets, we have to fight for that. And I'd really make a plea to my colleagues on this. We need to stick to our guns on this. We shouldn't play off agriculture versus cohesion. That shouldn't happen. We need both, and we need to make progress. It's a marathon, not a sprint, and we need to stick to this for the long run for the benefit of people in rural areas who are there on the ground.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much to Mr. Vares for your work. Thank you very much for your work. I think that the report deals in a critical way with the Commission's proposals, and that is indeed the right signal that we want to send out from the side of the Parliament. Now, I would, however, like to come back to a couple of points that are particularly important for me. We've already heard lots of different points about centralisation. We've spoken about the regional issues and how all of these points need to be included in the report. But what's important to me is the following. We should, and I'm still responsible for the rural areas, particularly making sure that rural areas aren't falling. Don't fall out of view. We've talked about 10% that should come from the commission and What we currently have. What we currently have. For the for the. From the cap. Now this 10% doesn't actually cover even half of what we had. So I think that when we look at the second pillar in the area of the rural areas, the development of the rural areas is, is is not there, despite the fact that we've got this 10%. And that really is a point that we need to have a look at in greater detail. We need to understand exactly what we mean by rural development in the future, MFF, and how we can ensure that we have a decent amount of money, which will also represent what we currently have.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much. While at a school recently, a pupil told me that she got her first smartphone at the age of ten. The first thing that her parents did was install TikTok on her phone, and now, perhaps videos she shouldn't have posted as much as she has because the risks are extremely, extremely high. Perpetrators use chats and applications to, um, to blackmail or put pressure on children. And so many children have experienced sexual violence online. But what happens online does not just stay online because things that happen online also happen in reality. What is prosecuted offline must also be prosecuted. Online platforms need to be consistent in shouldering their responsibility. They must allow for prosecutions and they must remove unlawful pictures as well. We also need to strengthen media literacy for children and parents so that they are more sensitive to the issue and outside the internet. Youth clubs. Sports clubs these also need to be protected because analogue areas are also important for children. For children, not just digital rooms, we need to ensure that children can be part of our democracy, not in a place where they are weaponised. Thank you.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “And what's important for me particularly is from the German perspective, of course, taking into account the transitional government. So what we've seen is that within cohesion, these do play an important role. And we've also seen that these discussions with the regions and categorizing them is being put forward. And I think it's important as well for our specific earmarking that when we talk about the regional categorization, that we can also understand exactly what we mean for these transitional governments so that they can make their plans. And then when we look at the performance based funds, and I think some of my other colleagues had already brought this up there, we need to have a look as well at ensuring that there is cohesion, because with this performance based amounts, we need to look at the effects, the analysis of the effects. And there it's not quite so simple to make that work when you're looking when you're working within a concept of performance. And so with these performance based approaches, particularly in the area of cohesion, we need to make sure that this is included and that they also reflect the the reality of those on the ground, because at the end of the day, within cohesion, these are a performance based approaches aren't easy to implement. And then something that my other the other speakers had already said. We're currently going through this competition between agricultural policy and cohesion and what we can see, and we should say quite clearly here, is that we're sitting in the committee and what we see in Strasbourg with the commissioner from for agriculture.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “And I think that's not happening. And the report also says so quite clearly in the way these policies are being implemented. I want to make some specific questions because I didn't quite understand exactly how what are the assessment criteria really? What are they really going to be to make sure that the beneficiaries can understand how the process is going to be carried out? I think that they should there should be quite clear assessment criteria. The second is about the question about the output in the criteria. We've seen also there that in particularly from the regional point of view, that there are differences in this respect. These output indicators at the end of the day lead to there being this top down approach when at particular regional characteristics or features are not then taken into account. And I would like to say to what Mr. Lynch said and just respond and say that it's very important when we talk about articles in other areas, for example, in the Common Agricultural Policy, that we don't talk only about that, but that we also make sure that cohesion and everything having to do with the agriculture regions have are dealt with by their own funds, their own budgets. So the same thing that we're demanding for the cap, that it also be done for cohesion funds. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Brina. Now, Cristina, please.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “That's where they grew up. You know the right to stay. You also focused on regional minorities. Minorities in rural areas have to be protected, and they should be able to still live there, not just young people, but everybody. Especially when we see demographic change and depopulation from rural areas and these sorts of the situation, we have to make sure that the money's on location policy, um, react to these sorts of challenges and that we offer, uh, perspectives for people, young people in rural areas, in areas where they grew up. It's not that they have to, uh, stay there, but we want to give them an opportunity to be able to stay there. So I'd like to know what you think about that. When it comes to regional minorities in rural areas, and maybe a third big point. And then I will finish. What about the new priorities? We've had an interesting debate and vote on the mid-term review from the Commission and these new priorities. Will we see moneys moving from cohesion policy to defense and housing energy policy? And the question therefore is. My question to you. What do you think of these new priorities? Do they defend your interest, do you think? Thank you. **Dragoș Benea (REGI Chair): Thank you. Mr. Thomas Deutsch from Patriots.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Yes. You said about cohesion and this 10% target. Which would be an additional budget in addition to direct payments. I just wanted to raise awareness of this. I tried to indicate that that's not just for farmers. It it is somewhere where where it's not just pillar two. And we can't replace it with funds from the cohesion policy. We have to be really careful here that we don't just have this raw target. And it's not just from pillar two. Basically, with mixing up the different budgets, it's going to be problematic for cohesion. Another point on leader. Yes, the member states should continue the programme, but the question is how much budget is there going to be for leader? How much is going to be dispersed? This is what people are asking from us. They're expecting it from us. And I haven't had a specific figure. Perhaps you can help me out here and tell me, in fact, how we can guarantee this programme in the future, and then it won't be dependent on the on the member states saying, well, we're going to carry or not carry on or not.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to respond to some things that have been said up until now, and begin by saying that the Commission has made it very clear that there are certain things that are being kept and other things are being changed. So I would like to focus our perspective of, oh, if we look at the report by the court, some of the not so good things are actually being kept rather than changed. And there's quite a lack of balance between what's being changed and what's being kept. If we take a closer look at their report, it's quite clear that there is a greater administrative administrative burden that there is. The Flexibilization is affecting as well, the ability to plan. And we're not actually sure what criteria will lead to funds being dispersed at the end of the day. So the question is, how are we actually. Supposed to understand these criteria? The commission doesn't seem to be able to make any movement in a particular direction, despite all of what's been said. So we want some as much. Once again, must call that if we want to make sure that we take into account the benefits of the people who are the beneficiaries. Of course, it's good for the commission if things are more simpler, but us, as representatives of the Parliament, is that we want to make sure that we create a budget that actually reaches the beneficiaries properly in the way that they want.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “We have to work with concrete figures. Um, and we don't have concrete figures. And so we cannot negotiate. If that is the case, that's not a basis for negotiation. You've talked about the performance based approach in ESF. Performance based at the end of the day, means that we have to be able to assess the benefits and social projects and measures that reinforce cohesion and not necessarily something that you can measure. And they strengthen our togetherness or cohesion, and that's not a performance based approach. And I don't think that should be in the proposal. Also, cofinancing rates under ESF, if we're dealing with the sinking budget, a falling budget, then. The cofinancing rates. Are going to become more difficult as well for member states and local authorities. This means a major challenge and a major challenge for the ESF. Esf needs to remain an independent budget line, and that we talk about concrete amounts, not just 14%, and that we acknowledge that the ESF needs to be continued, because without the ESF, we're not going to strengthen social cohesion. And that has to remain crystal clear. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Recently I went to a sports club to do a morning of training. And this is a game where you try to score in your goal and people all wear eye covering so that it requires a lot of concentration. You can't see what you're doing. It fosters a lot of respect and a cooperative, collaborative approach. And this is exactly what our work should be about equality. And this is what the Anti-Discrimination directive should deliver. We've been waiting for too long for it. We must be clear. Whoever you are, whatever you look like, who you love, where you come from, whether you have a disability, you should be able to shape your life as you wish and live your own life. We need to make a very loud, clear statement to this effect because our the cohesion of our society is under grave threat. I was so struck by the team spirit, by what that can achieve. Whilst increasing hate in society is prevalent everywhere, we can see what solidarity, cooperation and collaboration can actually achieve. This is what we need. Anti-discrimination must be taken forward.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “We need a strong cohesion policy. Soon we'll be getting the new commission proposals for the new MFF. So the sentence I spoke was a regional language, um, that stresses that this is a living thing and we should respect this. Wherever this exists in my region or anywhere else. People have their languages and their traditions, and they want to keep their local cultural identities. Often they don't get much support for this. And this is where cohesion policy can come in. It ought to be finally able to support these regional identities. Cultural languages, minority languages. They're not a luxury. They are part of a common European identity. We need a policy that supports this as well, with visibility, with access, with promotion and support for cross-border cooperation, and with room to live in your own way and speak your own language. Deutsche should remain and all other minority languages as well. This would only be possible if this is allowed to play a major role in the future. Mff so I call on the commission to do this because what makes Europe strong is its diversity and its cohesion at the same time. And this is only possible by working side by side with the regions.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds · Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Thank you. I share the same opinions as my colleagues. I am concerned as well, just as concerned as they are about cuts, the cuts that we're seeing for agriculture and development of rural areas, together with development of regions. And I'm concerned about the structure of the financing as well, because I don't think that the member states will be able to pay or make up for what the EU is cutting, and I don't think that the member states will support farmers and regional governments to the same extent. To make sure that farmers are in the same situation on the single market. Many member states are in a difficult financial situation at present, and it's unlikely that agriculture is going to be supported, which is bad news for food security. The idea of the EU being improved by cohesion policy is going to be impacted as well. I'm concerned about the leader programme funding as well with the new MFF. The representative from the commission has said that leader will continue to be financed, but we've not been told that the commission has suggested. That the national funding will have to be earmarked in the, um, the national Regional Partnership plans. And I'm wondering if they will want to support the leader program in Finland. My country leader has been used to develop regional areas a great deal. What we have now is a worsening of the situation. Leader could be used to support SMEs in rural areas, but also. To support the regions themselves. And it has helped although the investment was not so massive.”
  Cohesion and rural funding