Sabrina REPP

Policy topics Sabrina REPP is active on

What Sabrina REPP has said (20)

• 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)
• “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.”
  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
• “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
• “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
• “(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.”
  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.”
  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. 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, 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
• “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.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “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
• “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, 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