Changes from plenary report to adopted text

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Articles 4, 162, 174 to 178, and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (Common Provisions Regulation – CPR),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013,

– 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),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2025/925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2025 on Border Regions’ instrument for development and growth (BRIDGEforEU);

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005,

– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (the European Code of Conduct on Partnership),

– having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2024 on the implementation of territorial development (CPR, Title III, Chapter II) and its application in the European Territorial agenda 2030,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 24 January 2025 entitled ‘EU budget and place-based policies: proposals for new design and delivery mechanisms in the MFF post-2027’,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 February 2025 entitled ‘Strengthening the results orientation of post-2027 cohesion policy – challenges, risks and opportunities’,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’ (COM(2025)0046),

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 5 December 2024 entitled ‘Revision of the Territorial Agenda 2030 - Towards a more integrated and civic approach with stronger links with the cohesion policy’,

– having regard to the European Court of Auditors annual reports concerning the 2023 financial year,

– having regard to the European Court of Auditors report of 8 July 2024 entitled ‘Review 03/2024: An overview of the assurance framework and the key factors contributing to errors in 2014-2020 cohesion spending’,

– having regard to European Court of Auditors special report 22/2024 of 21 October 2024 entitled ‘Double funding from the EU budget – Control systems lack essential elements to mitigate the increased risk resulting from the RRF model of financing not linked to costs’,

– having regard to European Court of Auditors special report 13/2024 entitled ‘Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility – Progressing with delays and risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of RRF objectives’,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control,

– having regard to the opinion in the form of a letter from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A10-0138/2025),

A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool for reducing economic, social and territorial disparities, and its long-term character must not be jeopardised by emergency measures or amendments aimed at repurposing cohesion funds for other priorities; whereas cohesion policy funds must remain reserved for their primary objectives;

B. whereas regional cooperation can act as a catalyst for innovation and resilience, and cohesion policy instruments should enable such cooperation to flourish across territorial and administrative boundaries;

D. whereas cohesion policy funding accounts for approximately 30 % of the total budget of the EU and serves as a key pillar in supporting European regions, and it should remain distinct and not be pooled with other funds in the future multiannual financial framework (MFF) to ensure its effectiveness in reducing territorial disparities and fostering economic convergence;

E. whereas a simplified cohesion policy is key to ensuring European resilience, a just and sustainable green and digital transition, a right to stay for all EU citizens and to promoting the competitiveness of the EU;

F. whereas local and regional authorities (LRAs) are best equipped to identify local challenges and opportunities, and are key partners in delivering the EU’s political agenda and cohesion policy because they are responsible for 54 to 58 % of the total volume of public investments carried out by governments;

G. whereas the development of key strategic frameworks such as partnership agreements, just transition plans and national reform programmes often lacks a coordinated approach, and fails to meaningfully involve competent LRAs;

H. whereas the current 2021-2027 programming period, which builds on the previous initiatives with further expansions of simplified cost options, has a reduced list of policy objectives, and a clearer intervention logic through indicators, lighter reporting requirements and a single audit arrangement;

I. whereas cohesion policy remains one of the most visible and tangible symbols of European solidarity, and whereas the principle of ‘do no harm to cohesion’ should be applied for the future, to ensure that cohesion policy remains focused on its core mission – reducing regional disparities and fostering economic and social convergence across the EU;

J. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects, but also undermine the effectiveness, credibility, impact, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;

K. whereas the administrative burden on beneficiaries to apply for and implement projects supported by cohesion funds has increased with each funding period, creating a growing deterrent effect, and whereas the complexity and time-consuming nature of the application process often leads to a cost-benefit calculation that discourages beneficiaries from applying, thereby limiting the overall effectiveness and accessibility of cohesion policy;

L. whereas the simplification of cohesion policy funds should be complementary to other instruments to ensure further harmonisation and integration;

M. whereas public procurement and State aid rules are one of the major sources of administrative costs and burdens, stemming in part from gold-plating practices in all of the Member States, namely extra requirements imposed on beneficiaries by national and sub-national authorities beyond those deriving from EU law provisions, and from the difficult interpretation and application of the General Block Exemption Regulation in different territorial contexts;

N. whereas previous funding periods for cohesion policy have repeatedly started too late, especially the current funding period 2021-2027, which leads to enormous backlog pressure and a slow outflow of cohesion funds;

O. whereas a series of factors, including delays in finalising the legislative package and the partnership agreements and programmes, the simultaneous implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), and the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;

P. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has seriously hampered the timely, efficient and effective implementation of cohesion policy, and whereas this complexity has made access to cohesion policy funding particularly challenging for smaller local authorities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and civil society organisations across the EU;

Q. whereas simplification measures should strike a balance between the need, on the one hand, for easier and better access to funds, in order to achieve sustainable results, and on the other, to protect the EU budget, taking due account of the concerns and contributions of institutional and non-institutional stakeholders, and should not be undermined once in place by the reintroduction of complexity under the banner of national audit requirements;

R. whereas the Financial Regulation requires the Commission to take corrective measures, such as simplification of the applicable provisions, improvement of control systems, and the redesign of the programme or delivery systems, if during the implementation of the EU budget, the level of error is persistently high;

S. whereas the revised allocation key, entitled the ‘Berlin formula’, in its current formulation in Annex XXVI to the CPR, which adds other significant elements to the GDP, does not yet adequately reflect divergences in reality;

T. whereas any attempt to simplify cohesion policy on the part of the Commission must take into account that changes to existing implementation practices may be at first an additional burden for administrative authorities and beneficiaries;

U. whereas shared management, the partnership principle, multilevel governance, subsidiarity and a place-based approach should remain the cornerstone of any reform and simplification of cohesion policy; whereas the shared management model has proven to be a fundamental pillar of cohesion policy, ensuring that EU funds are tailored to the specific needs of regions and local areas while fostering ownership and accountability at all levels of governance; whereas the multilevel governance framework reinforces cooperation between the EU, national, regional and local authorities, ensuring that policies are effectively designed and implemented in a manner that reflects territorial diversity and maximises impact on the ground;

V. whereas the principle of subsidiarity could be better applied to cohesion funding by, for example, introducing threshold values under which certain obligations and requirements could be waived, as is the case for other EU funds;

W. whereas technical simplifications in territorial development tools (such as Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community Led Local Development (CLLD)) have already been integrated into the cohesion policy framework for the 2021-2027 programming period, but small projects still have proportionally higher administrative burdens (for beneficiaries) and administrative costs (for programme authorities) than larger projects; whereas the concerns raised by the European Court of Auditors about CLLD must be addressed – particularly the disproportionate administrative costs compared to local action group budgets;

X. whereas, in light of the current geopolitical challenges, cohesion policy can play a role in developing key dual-use infrastructure that serves civilian needs in times of peace, while also enhancing territorial resilience and crisis response, and whereas new priorities cannot come at the expense of, nor lead to, a reduction in long-term investment in the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU;

Y. whereas cohesion policy has consistently demonstrated its capacity to absorb and effectively invest nearly all EU funds allocated to it; whereas the gradual increase in payments towards the latter part of the planning period is an inherent feature of multiannual programmes – and therefore, a similarly positive outcome can realistically be expected by the end of the current programming period;

Z. whereas the principle of a single audit should be maintained and strengthened alongside regular Commission audits, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits that overlap with national oversight at regional, national and EU levels for the same project and beneficiary, also by ensuring the consistent interpretation of regulations and minimising administrative burdens on beneficiaries and managing authorities;

AA. whereas the principle of sound financial management requires independent auditing procedures to ensure compliance with EU rules; whereas reliance on national oversight alone may lead to discrepancies in enforcement and monitoring, thereby undermining the uniform application of financial controls across all Member States and ultimately jeopardising the protection of the EU’s financial interests;

AB. whereas ensuring robust audit mechanisms is essential to maintaining accountability, traceability and effectiveness in the use of EU funds, helping to prevent fraud, mismanagement, and inconsistencies in national oversight systems;

AC. whereas cohesion policy must remain resilient to fraud, corruption, and any attempts to divert its funding from its original mission and agreed programme priorities towards investments serving particular personal or party political interests; whereas, to this end, conditionalities and built-in mechanisms to prevent, detect and correct irregularities – including fraud – must be strengthened; whereas the proper application of the partnership principle, transparency requirements and anti-fraud policies is essential;