—

having regard to Articles 174 and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) (the Common Provisions Regulation),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the healthcare systems of Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative) (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (7) (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/562 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) (8),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2039 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) 2021/1060 as regards additional flexibility to address the consequences of the military aggression of the Russian Federation FAST (Flexible Assistance for Territories) – CARE (9),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 4 February 2022 on the 8th Cohesion Report: Cohesion in Europe towards 2050’ (COM(2022)0034),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 17 January 2023 entitled ‘Harnessing talent in Europe’s regions’ (COM(2023)0032),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 29 May 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2018)0373),

—

having regard to the Commission’s amended proposal of 12 December 2023 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2023)0790),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 30 June 2021 entitled ‘A long-term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas – Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040’ (COM(2021)0345),

—

having regard to the Territorial Agenda 2030 of the European Union, adopted at the Informal Meeting of Ministers responsible for Territorial Cohesion and/or Territorial Development on 1 December 2020,

—

having regard to the 2022 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) entitled ‘Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’,

—

having regard to the IPCC special report of 2018 entitled ‘Global warming of 1,5 °C – An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1,5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty’,

—

having regard to the IPCC special report of 2019 entitled ‘Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems’,

—

having regard to the IPCC special report of 2019 entitled ‘IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’,

—

having regard to the agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions (10),

—

having regard its resolution of 9 May 2023 on the role of cohesion policy in addressing multidimensional environmental challenges in the Mediterranean basin (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on EU border regions: living labs of European integration (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2022 on the challenges for urban areas in the post-COVID-19 era (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 entitled ‘Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions’  (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on reversing demographic trends in EU regions using cohesion policy instruments (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2021 on cohesion policy and regional environment strategies in the fight against climate change (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2018 on cohesion policy and the circular economy (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2018 on lagging regions in the EU (19),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 29 November 2023 entitled ‘The future of Cohesion Policy post-2027’  (20),

—

having regard to the EU Annual Report on the State of Regions and Cities 2022,

—

having regard to the study entitled ‘EU lagging regions: state of play and future challenges’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union on 26 October 2020  (21),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A9-0049/2024),

A.

whereas in the 2014-2020 programming period, cohesion policy, as the EU’s main investment policy, effectively supported its Treaty-based objective of achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion across the EU; whereas cohesion policy was also an essential investment pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy, by contributing to its goal of achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; whereas cohesion policy is the only development instrument that is geared towards regional and local needs and towards, inter alia, addressing the negative effects of climate change;

B.

whereas climate change is impacting all EU regions, bringing about drastic changes to people’s lives; whereas climate change thus poses a significant threat to the Union’s cohesion;

C.

whereas cohesion policy investments across the EU have resulted in unparalleled positive impacts on regions, cities, islands and rural, border and remote areas; whereas directly or indirectly, every EU Member State has experienced the positive effects of financing through the EU budget; whereas the outcomes of the multitude of local projects confirm the indispensable role of regional and local investment through cohesion policy and highlight its role and visibility in the multiannual financial framework (MFF);

D.

whereas cohesion policy’s multi-priority investment approach, combined with its shared management, have contributed to the EU’s priorities, namely support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), research and innovation, digitalisation, rural development, better urban infrastructure, sustainable tourism, transport infrastructure, culture and education, healthcare, social policies, cross-border projects, the energy transition, energy efficiency, the climate and the environment;

E.

whereas through instruments such as the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative and Initiative Plus (CRII and CRII+), Cohesion's Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE), Flexible Assistance to Territories (FAST-CARE) and Supporting Affordable Energy (SAFE), cohesion policy has acted as a structural bulwark against the many successive crises that have hit the Union throughout the 2014-2020 programming period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, during which it safeguarded jobs and helped businesses that had been hit, and the refugee, energy and inflation crises caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine;

F.

whereas cohesion policy binds the EU together; whereas reducing its budget and/or renationalising it could weaken the EU and fuel anti-EU sentiment across the Union;

G.

whereas the European urban agenda, which builds on the Leipzig Charter, supports the objectives of the Territorial Agenda 2030;

H.

whereas the challenges facing European regions are identified and managed at the territorial level; whereas the repeated use of cohesion policy to respond to crises and emergencies is putting the policy’s viability at risk; whereas the European Court of Auditors has pointed out that the effects of this constant erosion of cohesion resources on the long-term objectives of the policy need to be carefully analysed (22);

I.

whereas cohesion policy is a long-term investment policy and should not become a first-choice source of emergency funding to address any challenge or unforeseen event, as this undermines the policy’s strategic approach; whereas clear rules should be established on the use of cohesion policy funds to ensure both a structural approach and the need to face unforeseen events;

J.

whereas there are an increasing number of funds and instruments scattered under different legal and strategic frameworks, in particular the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which pursues cohesion priorities under a different legal framework and delivery model, and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), which is no longer a part of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds);

K.

whereas a creeping erosion of the policy is taking place, with the emergence of thematic funds and initiatives that support particular sectors or goals and rely on contributions from cohesion policy, such as the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production, the Recovery assistance for cohesion and the territories of Europe (REACT-EU) and RePowerEU; whereas this dilutes the territorial approach of the policy;

L.

whereas the efficient management of the cohesion policy funds is crucial to meeting regional and local development objectives and needs;

M.

whereas the system for monitoring cohesion policy funds was mainly designed to detect errors, but does not detect fraud so easily;

N.

whereas the fight against fraud must be based on increased and direct cooperation between the services of the Commission and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; whereas the absence of a clear distinction between error, anomaly and fraud considerably complicates and makes more cumbersome the management and implementation of cohesion policy;

O.

whereas the delayed adoption of the 2021-2027 MFF, the multitude of recent crises and the introduction of the NextGenerationEU instruments hindered the speedy implementation of cohesion policy across the EU, caused programming and delivery challenges and introduced uncertainty into planned regional and local EU investments;

P.

whereas since legal basis for the RRF is Article 175 TFEU, the Member States and the Commission should have pursued the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion and effectively coordinated with cohesion policy;

Q.

whereas in many cases, the Member States implemented the RRF concurrently with cohesion policy, often without consulting or cooperating with local and regional authorities, even to take stock of what had been implemented; whereas the EU’s regions are often more willing and able than the Member State governments to implement this funding;

R.

whereas the last implementation phase of the 2014-2020 MFF was especially demanding, as the end of the programming period, the additional funding provided in response to the recent crises, including through NextGenerationEU, and the beginning of the 2021-2027 programming period overlapped in time and put additional strain on national, regional and local administrations, which slowed the pace of implementation and negatively affected their monitoring and auditing abilities; whereas, according to the European Court of Auditors, the pressure to spend large amounts in a very short period of time may have unfortunately contributed to an increase in irregular spending (23);

S.

whereas the implementation rates for cohesion policy differ significantly among Member States and among funding programmes; whereas certain Member States and regions have consistently low implementation rates, which necessitates that further attention be paid to the efficiency of these programmes’ management;

T.

whereas despite the regulatory improvements introduced in the 2014-2020 programming period and the improvements to the 2021-2027 regulatory framework, a number of challenges still remain; whereas the policy has proven to be very complex to implement for the managing authorities, competent local and regional bodies and final beneficiaries;

U.

whereas public procurement rules in many Member States, alongside additional national auditing and monitoring, generate an additional burden for managing authorities and beneficiaries;

V.

whereas, while following a strategic approach throughout the programming period is of the utmost importance, it should be possible to reassess and adjust this approach midterm; whereas, nevertheless, a sufficient degree of flexibility in cohesion policy’s programming is needed to address unexpected events that occur during the programming period;

W.

whereas cohesion policy funding should comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the principles of the rule of law, and the European code of conduct on partnership (24);

X.

whereas the principles of multilevel governance and partnership need to be significantly strengthened to effectively involve the local and regional level in the programming, reprogramming and implementation of EU funds;

Y.

whereas cohesion policy has effectively helped to reduce disparities over the years, but, as made clear by the eighth cohesion report, some inequalities persist among Member States, among and within regions, among different types of areas (as referred to in Articles 174 and 349 TFEU), and within the richest urban areas; whereas new disparities, such as the regional innovation divide, have also emerged;

Z.

whereas the outermost regions and island territories with the status of overseas countries and territories face a significant number of structural constraints and are less developed than the continental regions of their Member States; whereas a stable and predictable regulatory environment is particularly important for the efficient management of cohesion policy funds in these regions;

AA.

whereas the green and digital transitions are moving at very different speeds across the EU and should be properly managed to avoid adverse impacts on certain regions and even greater disparities;

AB.

whereas while eastern EU regions have been catching up, other regions, especially in the southern EU, have stagnated; whereas certain regions are caught in a development trap, characterised by long periods of slow or negative growth, with low productivity and low levels of job creation;

AC.

whereas the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has particularly affected the EU's eastern border areas;

AD.

whereas demographic ageing in the EU as a whole has led to a shrinking working-age population; whereas several EU regions are facing the ongoing departure of their young and skilled workers; whereas rural, peripheral, outermost and industrial-transition regions in the EU are particularly affected by these worrying demographic trends; whereas these trends, if left unaddressed, will have undesirable long-term effects on the EU;

AE.

whereas EU pre-accession and enlargement processes require a well-balanced and targeted role for regional development and cohesion policy;