Changes from plenary report to adopted text

(v) continue to address the major custom gap challenges that the rapid growth of e-commerce poses to customs authorities; provide adequate human, technical and financial resources;

Single market, Innovation and Digital

59. Notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 1 ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ was EUR 25,9 billion (13,5 % of the Union budget) distributed as follows: EUR 14,9 billion (57,6 %) for Research, EUR 4,1 billion (15,9 %) for Transport, Energy and Digital, EUR 3,1 billion (11,9 %) for the InvestEU Programme, EUR 2,3 billion (8,8 %) for Space, and EUR 1,5 billion (5,8 %) for other areas;

60. Notes that the Court has examined 127 transactions covering the full range of spending under this MFF heading; notes with concern that 32 (25 %) of the 127 transactions that the Court examined contained errors; regrets that, based on the 28 quantifiable errors the Court found, and additional errors detected in MFF heading 1 transactions implemented by Union agencies, joint undertakings and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the Court estimates that the level of error in spending on ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ in 2024 was material at 3,2 %; further notes that the Commission estimates the risk at payment as 1,6 % for this heading, which is in the lower half of the range of the Court’s estimate;

61. Notes the categorisation of errors by the Court, with ineligible direct personnel costs accounting for 76 % of errors, ineligible other direct costs (VAT, travel, equipment) accounting for 18 %, ineligible subcontracting accounting for 4 % and ineligible indirect costs for 2 %;

62. Notes with concern the Court’s observation that research continues to be a high-risk spending area, particularly in the area of personnel costs; notes that the Court found quantifiable errors relating to 26 of the 99 research and innovation transactions it sampled; recognises that the way funds are disbursed has an impact on the risk of error and the complex rules associated with reimbursement-based funding generally used in the area of research; underlines, in this regard, the need to simplify rules governing Union research and innovation programmes with a view to reducing the risk of errors while facilitating access of beneficiaries, notably SMEs, to Union funding;

63. Observes that the Court has also identified several issues in Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) projects, including the reporting of indirect costs, discrepancies between declared and actual payments and non-compliant procurement procedures, and calls for strict compliance with cost eligibility rules and sound financial management by all partners; furthermore, emphasises the need to take these issues into account in the context of the upcoming CEF Regulation (2028–2034), in order to improve transparency in the implementation of CEF projects and to reinforce their EU added value;

64. Welcomes that for its 2024 Annual Report, the Court also assessed the performance information on MFF heading 1 which was presented in the programme performance statements of the 2023 annual management and performance report prepared by the Commission; appreciates the Court’s overall conclusion that the design of performance indicators improved compared to the 2014-2020 programming period, including the balance of different types of indicators (input, output, result and impact) in the case of Horizon Europe, the EU Space Programme, and InvestEU; notes with concern that the 2021-2027 Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) legislation does not include result or impact indicators;

65. Is concerned that the Court identified gaps in the traceability of reported results, particularly for Horizon 2020; underlines the importance of verifying and ensuring the traceability and reliability of data used to establish performance indicators; notes that, owing to the introduction and increasing use of simplified cost options and financing models not linked to costs, weaknesses in the traceability and reliability of performance data must be addressed to protect the Union financial interests;

66. Notes with concern the Court’s finding that the Commission could not provide project-level information for InvestEU, as it is implemented through indirect management, complemented by monitoring visits; regrets the Commission’s reply that InvestEU implementing partners are neither required by the guarantee agreements nor by the InvestEU Regulation to report key performance indicators (KPIs) at project level; considers that project-level data should be the basis for enhanced performance reporting for financial instruments implemented under indirect management, such as InvestEU; stresses that the European Investment Bank (EIB), as the main implementing partner of InvestEU, must be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability;

67. Is concerned that the Court found that, in general, progress in achieving targets for KPIs was lower than assessed by the Commission; notes that MFF 2021-2027 programmes are mostly on track to achieve targets, while 2014-2020 programmes had only partially met their objectives; notes with concern the Court’s conclusion that less than half of the performance indicators of Horizon 2020 and of CEF 2014-2020 show that results have been achieved or are on track; notes that for InvestEU, 50 % of the indicators presented in the programme performance statements did not have a target; acknowledges the Commission’s reply that, owing to the market- and demand-driven nature of financial instruments such as InvestEU, the performance of such programmes depends on their take-up by the market, which limits the Commission’s ability to establish predefined milestones and targets;

68. Recalls the importance of Union research and innovation (R&I) funding programmes for the scientific, societal, economic and technological development of the Union, adequately addressing emerging priorities and challenges, reducing inequalities, achieving the green and digital transitions and decreasing the Union’s energy dependency on Russia; underlines that in order to enhance the Union’s competitiveness, technological leadership and strategic autonomy and to close the innovation gap with global competitors, increased funding for R&I is needed and a stronger and more targeted investment effort in research and innovation, combined with reduced administrative burden for applicants and better mobilisation of private capital, is essential, also with a view to addressing the Draghi report’s pertinent recommendations; recalls that the Draghi report underlines that excellence in research and innovation is fundamental to the Union’s competitiveness and that within the Union research and innovation system, including the Horizon Europe programme, there should be one selection criterion, namely, excellence; reiterates, in this regard, its position that funding for research and innovation should continue to be determined by the principle of excellence and should remain merit-based;

69. Notes that the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 estimated that for each euro of costs linked to the programme, five euros worth of benefits would be generated for society by 2040; deeply regrets that 74 % of proposals assessed as high quality by independent experts could not be funded due to budget constraints; notes that an additional EUR 159 billion would have been needed to fund all high-quality proposals; stresses the importance of ensuring sufficient funding for Union R&I to boost the Union’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness; highlights the importance of making full use of the Seal of Excellence and other complementary Union and national funding instruments, including those under cohesion policy, to support high-quality but unfunded research and innovation projects and to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems across the Union;

70. Underlines the importance of simplifying the rules and procedures governing Union R&I funding to facilitate beneficiaries’ access to funding and programme implementation; stresses that simplification measures should be designed in a way to benefit applicants and beneficiaries, including first-time applicants, SMEs and universities, while promoting smaller and more flexible consortia, modular project structures and staged participation in order to facilitate broader participation and effective inclusion across the Union; is concerned by the Court’s finding that despite the simplifications introduced under Horizon Europe to facilitate the beneficiaries’ cost reporting, the Court found no significant differences between Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe as regards the regularity of expenditure;

71. Notes the Court finding that the Commission has implemented most of its recommendations made in previous years; nevertheless, is concerned that the tool Personnel Costs Wizard, the use of which the Court strongly encourages, especially by certain categories of beneficiaries that are more prone to committing errors, such as SMEs and new entrants, was not yet ready at the time of the Court’s audit; notes the Court’s finding that for five of the 34 Horizon Europe transactions in its 2024 sample, beneficiaries either still calculated personnel costs using the method applicable to Horizon 2020 or did not fully follow the new rules applicable to Horizon Europe; considers that the development and use of tools such as the Personnel Costs Wizard could help beneficiaries apply the correct rules for calculating personnel costs, the major source of error under MFF heading 1;

72. Notes that in 2024 the Commission has continued the roll out of simplified cost options such as lump sums and unit costs in Horizon Europe, with lump sum funding accounting for 27 % of the total call budget in the work programmes for 2024; recalls the Court’s clarification that when lump sum grants are given, the beneficiaries are paid a pre-defined lump sum for each completed work package, regardless of the actual costs incurred; further notes that the Commission’s target is to provide by 2027 at least 50 % of the call budget in published work programmes in the form of lump sums; is concerned, that for the reasons explained in box 5.4 of its Annual report, the Court was not able to assess whether including a specific item of equipment in the budget proposal was necessary and justified in the case of a lump sum grant it audited; calls on the Commission to ensure that future funding instruments include safeguards to avoid overcompensation for equipment that was not actually purchased although included in the lump sum budget, in line with the Court’s observations;

73. Acknowledges that the Horizon Europe interim evaluation found that lump sums provided real simplification for beneficiaries, as estimated savings range between 14 % and 30 % of their administrative costs; notes the findings of the Commission’s assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe 2018-2024, including that beneficiaries also reported to the Commission that they would welcome more clarity on how lump sum grants would be audited; appreciates that in 2024, the Commission put in place an ex-post control strategy for Horizon Europe grants, including a methodology for ex-post technical reviews in lump sum grants; notes that the Commission has launched the first 30 Horizon Europe ex-post technical reviews in the fourth quarter of 2024; recognises, at the same time, the Court's observation that although lump sums are appropriate for clearly defined work packages, difficulties in the implementation of such schemes would arise in situations where work packages are delayed, partially completed or some of the activities stipulated in the work package are replaced;

74. Notes the Court’s finding that there has been a significant increase in Union financial support to third parties in research, as under Horizon 2020 grants EUR 2,5 billion of such funding was provided for the whole programming period, whereas by the end of 2024, EUR 5,5 billion was provided under Horizon Europe; is concerned by the Court’s finding that for nine out of 11 transactions sampled relating to grants to third parties, the EUR 60 000 funding threshold set by Article 207 of the Financial Regulation had been exceeded without proper justification for derogation in the work programme or the call; notes that in the Commission’s view, the need for higher grant amounts is inherent to certain types of actions; is alarmed by the Court’s finding that third parties are not required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their controls to ensure the regularity of Union spending; agrees with the Court that this poses a risk to sound financial management and the protection of the Union’s financial interests;

75. Notes that Union research and innovation programmes, including Horizon Europe, support the development of advanced technologies for civil applications, but acknowledges that certain technologies may carry inherent dual-use risks; considers that strengthening Union defence requires enhanced support for research and innovation under Horizon Europe; highlights the significant potential of emerging technologies, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum computing, to contribute to the Union’s security and resilience; considers that civilian research and innovation programmes should therefore be appropriately supported and strategically aligned, including, where relevant, by enabling their results to be used for dual-use purposes in order to safeguard the EU’s defence capabilities; notes with concern however, the Commission’s reply that it is currently not monitoring specifically after the end of a project if the results of Union-funded R&I projects are taken forward for dual use, military or defence applications; calls on the Commission to ensure appropriate monitoring of the follow-up of Union-funded R&I projects with potential dual use, military or defence applications in line with Union requirements; underlines the importance of ensuring that Union funding is fully consistent with the Union’s values and obligations under international law; stresses at the same time the need for the Commission to strengthen the follow-up of Union-funded research results, including their transition to commercial use, in order to maximise societal impact and ensure an adequate return on investment for taxpayers;

77. Underlines the strategic importance of research in the field of defence for strengthening the Union’s security and long-term resilience; emphasises that defence and security research requires close and trusted cooperation among Member States to ensure a more cost-effective and efficient use of Union taxpayers’ money, avoid unnecessary duplication and foster synergies; underlines that research activities in this domain necessarily involve highly sensitive data, technologies and information which must be subject to the highest standards of protection against external interference or malicious manipulation; stresses, in this context, the urgent need to develop a common and robust protective architecture at Union level to counter hybrid threats and safeguard critical knowledge, infrastructure and innovation ecosystems;

78. Recalls that on 10 March 2022 the European Parliament decided to set up the PEGA Committee to investigate alleged infringement or maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware surveillance software and the European Parliament recommendation of 15 June 2023 to the Council and the Commission adopted following PEGA Committee’s work; expresses its dissatisfaction that the Commission still has not presented enforcement measures and legislative follow-up to Parliament’s recommendations regarding the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware; takes note of media reports alleging that Union funding may have directly supported companies implicated in the development, deployment and export of spyware by entities whose technologies have been linked to unlawful surveillance of journalists, human rights defenders and political actors in the Union and in third countries; notes the Commission’s reply that the proper use of Union funds is ensured by various contractual provisions requiring respect of the applicable law and Union values and that failure to respect these obligations can result in various contractual measures, including suspension of contract or payments and contract termination; notes also the Commission’s written reply that it considers that it has put in place several measures to address the risk that spyware falls into the wrong hands and increase protection for the potential victims of spyware, including European Media Freedom Act, e-Privacy Directive, Cyber Resilience Act and Dual-use regulation and that its annual Rule of Law reports also cover developments regarding the allegations of illegal use of spyware;

79. Notes the Commission’s reply to the Committee on Budgetary Control that the companies in question have received a total of EUR 12,77 million from the Union budget since 2021; regrets that the Commission only shared with the Committee on Budgetary Control partial information on the total amount of Union funding allocated to spyware or intrusive surveillance software firms, as the reply it provided is limited to information already publicly available in the Financial Transparency System (FTS), which currently only publishes information on beneficiaries and contractors under direct management and on implementing partners under indirect management; deplores the fact that the discharge authority received an incomplete reply to its request;

80. Highlights the importance of Union investments in the development of high performing, sustainable and efficiently interconnected trans-European networks in the fields of transport, energy and digital services and notes that the CEF, with EUR 4,1 billion of expenditure in 2024, is a key Union instrument in delivering these objectives;

82. Recalls that the Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to ensure fair and innovation-friendly digital markets in Europe, preventing any single actor from dominating it at the expense of consumers, competitors, or democratic oversight; stresses the significant negative effects that digital market dominance pose to fundamental rights and the spread of information manipulation and disinformation and the need for joint Union action in these areas; notes that during 2024, the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) faced serious understaffing, as reported in its Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2024; notes that DG COMP reallocated staff to units responsible for the enforcement of the DMA which created staff shortages in other departments;

Recommendations

83. Calls on the Commission to:

(i) fully address the Court’s recommendations concerning legality and regularity and performance reporting;

(ii) secure the provision of significantly increased Union funding for research and innovation, determined by the principle of excellence and merit;

(iii) introduce binding requirements for implementing partners, including the EIB, to provide performance reporting based on project-level data also for financial instruments implemented under indirect management, such as InvestEU; demands that such reporting should rely on a balanced mix of output, result, and impact indicators;

(iv) conduct a review of the simplification measures introduced for Horizon Europe to assess whether they provide genuine simplification for project beneficiaries and applicants, including their impact on administrative burden, participation rates, geographical balance and ease of access for new applicants, in particular from less performing regions, and fostering synergies with other Union instruments, including cohesion policy and the Seal of Excellence;

(v) develop and encourage the use of tools, such as the Personnel Costs Wizard, that help beneficiaries apply the correct rules for calculating personnel costs;

(vi) evaluate the lessons learned from the ex-post technical reviews for lump sum grants launched in 2024 and in 2025, and report back to the discharge authority;

(vii) ensure that future funding instruments include safeguards to avoid overcompensation for equipment that was not actually purchased although included in the lump sum budget;

(viii) review a representative sample of lump sum grants, and analyse the lessons learnt from their implementation and the methods used to establish Union financial support, before further extending the use of lump sum grants to future funding instruments;

(ix) conduct a comprehensive review of Union funding for the development, deployment and export of spyware or intrusive surveillance software across all management modes since 2021, and prepare an action plan to prevent the abuse of spyware in the Union, and share them with the discharge authority;

(x) pursue a technology-neutral approach to research and innovation, including by promoting cross-border projects, in order to support the achievement of climate neutrality by 2050 and foster a stable, resilient and affordable Union energy supply, while guaranteeing cost-effectiveness, accelerating progress towards Union climate goals and enhancing competitiveness;

(xi) reinforce cooperation among Member States in defence- and security-related research through Union-funded R&I programmes, while promoting synergies, ensuring the robust protection of sensitive data and protection of technologies against foreign interference and hybrid threats, and where appropriate, enabling the responsible use of research results for dual-use purposes in order to support the Union’s resilience, defence capabilities, and strategic independence;

(xii) ensure that Union research funding, including under Horizon Europe and through agreements with non-Union partners, is allocated in a manner consistent with Union values and does not contribute to the support of spyware or intrusive surveillance technologies, in line with the Parliament’s relevant recommendations adopted on 15 June 2023;

Cohesion, Resilience and Values

84. Underlines the role of Union cohesion policy in reducing economic, social and territorial disparities within the Union, as established by the Treaties, as well as for supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; insists on continued support for cohesion in the post-2027 MFF, following the principles of partnership and multilevel governance, and with the involvement of local and regional authorities and relevant stakeholders; notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF-Heading 2 ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ was EUR 61,4 billion (32,1 % of the Union budget) distributed as follows: 47,7 % for the ERDF and other regional operations, 16,4 % for the European Social Fund (ESF), 6,7 % for the CF, 6,6 % for Erasmus+, 2,2 % for CEF Transport, 3,6 % for EU Recovery, and 3,1 % for other schemes;

85. Notes that the Court has examined a sample of 223 transactions covering the full range of spending under MFF Heading 2; notes with concern that the Court’s estimated overall level of error in expenditure under this heading in 2024 is again significantly above the materiality threshold at 5,7 %; reminds that the Court’s error rate includes the errors that remained undetected by the Member States and the Commission and demonstrate that the Commission’s error rates are underestimated;

86. Notes the Court’s categorisation of errors found in cohesion expenditure, with ineligible costs accounting for 49 % of errors, serious non-compliance in public procurement and state aid rules accounting for 23 %, ineligible projects for 18 %; notes, furthermore, that ERDF and CF related expenditure account for the largest share of errors (54 %);

87. Notes that overall, the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO) concluded in its AAR that a material level or irregular expenditure remained in the 2024 accounts for the ERDF/CF, despite the results of the controls and corrections already applied at Member State level, and that the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) concluded the same for the ESF/YEI and FEAD;

88. Reiterates its concerns about the Court’s conclusion in its Review 03/2024 ‘An overview of the assurance framework and the key factors contributing to errors in 2014-2020 cohesion spending’ that the Commission underestimates the level of errors it reports;

89. Is concerned about the persistent shortcomings observed by the Court in the work of national audit authorities as visible in the weaknesses identified in the assurance packages, with a residual error rate above the materiality threshold in assurance packages that account for more than 60 % of the total value of assurance packages audited in 2024; stresses with concern that managing authorities consistently do not effectively succeed in preventing or detecting irregularities in expenditure declared by beneficiaries and that this reduces the extent to which the Commission can rely on their work;

90. Is concerned about the Court’s observation that the errors the Court found could, and should, have been detected by the audit authorities when they conducted their checks; notes that this reduces the extent to which the Commission can rely on the results of their work; highlights with concern the Court’s observation that, since 2017, the proportion of assurance packages with residual error rates of above 2 % had not dropped below 39 % of the expenditure in its samples, indicating that shortcomings remain in the work of the audit authorities, which are not sufficiently addressed by the Commission’s assurance work; however, welcomes the launch by the Commission of an Action Plan aiming at improving the authorities’ detection capacity in the 2021-2027 period;

91. Notes that the Court, in its Review 04/2025 ‘The Future of EU Cohesion Policy: Drawing lessons from the past’ recalled the longstanding challenge related to the complexity of the regulatory framework, and that, despite efforts to simplify rules and procedures, the complexity of Union regulation and the coexistence of national and regional requirements continues to impose significant administrative burdens and contributes to a high error rate; recalls, however, the important role that cohesion policy has played in reducing economic, social and territorial disparities and promoting convergence and stability across the Union, thereby demonstrating its added value for Union taxpayers, which can be further strengthened by addressing persistent weaknesses; notes that, while simplified cost options have been introduced to reduce reporting obligations, their use remains limited, especially in the ERDF; recalls the persistent weaknesses in Member States’ management and control systems; calls into question the Commission’s plan for increased reliance on national systems and stresses that they must be remedied before the introduction of any such future spending model under the next MFF; stresses the need to define clear and binding supervisory and control responsibilities for both the Commission and the Member States prior to the beginning of implementation; considers that the Commission should not rely solely on Member States’ control systems, but should define minimum requirements and verification mechanisms, similar to those provided for under shared management, in order to avoid any non-compliance with national and Union rules, as requested by the Court;

92. Notes that the Court’s findings, in its Special Report 22/2025 ‘Financial corrections in cohesion policy funds’ that the Commission does not apply financial corrections as it should to protect the Union budget from irregular expenditure in cohesion policy, and that, despite cohesion spending being affected year after year by a significant number of errors, the Commission took more than a decade to adopt its first financial correction in September 2025 for the 2014-2020 period; points out that the legal framework governing the correction mechanism is complex that guidance and criteria for assessing serious deficiencies is not clear enough, and is not applied consistently, and that there is no well-defined timeframe for the procedure;

93. Notes with concern that the Court identified shortcomings in the planning and preparation of the authorities’ audit work, such as weaknesses in the sampling approaches and incomplete checklists;

94. Recalls that, following a discharge-related access to documents request concerning contracts with 30 economic operators, the Commission had to undertake a broad and resource-intensive identification exercise due to limitations in its internal data systems, which resulted in the identification of hundreds of entities with similar or related names; acknowledges the efforts made by the Commission services to respond promptly and transparently; further recalls that, as of the next MFF, the Commission will be required to use data stored in the Arachne data-mining and risk-scoring tool to feed a centralised transparency website, with Member States obliged to provide automated access to relevant data, an obligation which will apply from 2027 onwards and on which the Commission has already begun preparatory work; urges the Commission to implement an interoperable system to allow a European tracing of funds with the start of the new MFF;

95. Notes that the Court, in its Special Report 24/2025 ‘Financial instruments in EU cohesion policy: A revolving use of funds materialised partially’ found that, while one of the advantages of financial instruments in cohesion policy over grants is that reflows can be used to support additional final recipients, leading to more efficient use of public financing, only a limited reuse of reflows materialises during eligibility periods, partly due to acceptable reasons, such as the long-term nature of investments; notes that after the eligibility period, reflows are generally reused for cohesion purposes but with limitations; deplores that the legal framework on the reuse obligation is insufficiently clear and ambiguous, and that the Commission lacks oversight, leading to varying practices among Member States’ managing authorities;

96. Is concerned about the Court’s observation that implementation of the cohesion policy funds (ERDF, CF, ESF+), accounting for over 90 % of the shared management funds under the CPR for 2021-2027, remained low; notes that when the Court compares their implementation (prefinancing and interim payments) with the previous programming period, the overall absorption rate of these three funds was only 5 % by the end of 2024 compared to 14 % at the equivalent point of the previous MFF (end of 2017); underlines that the current programming period has been implemented in an exceptionally challenging context marked by successive crises, inflationary pressures, supply chain disruptions and evolving geopolitical and economic conditions; acknowledges, at the same time, that the 2021-2027 programmes were adopted seven months later than those of the 2014-2020 programming period and that the pre-financing rates under the 2014-2020 programmes were higher and cleared at a different moment than those under the current MFF; notes, in this regard, that the absorption rate at the comparable implementation stage, at the end of June 2017, for the ERDF, the CF and the ESF+ stood at 3,49 %, which is comparable to the rate at the end of 2024; notes with concern that as the end of the eligibility period for the underlying expenditure and the deadline for payment of the final balance for the 2021-2027 MFF are set one year earlier than in the previous programming period, the pressure to absorb Union funds will increase further;

97. Expresses its concern that in 2024, the Commission forecast decommitments for the period 2025-2027 increased at EUR 8,8 billion compared to the 2023 forecast of EUR 8,1 billion for the same period and that this increase in estimated decommitments was mainly driven by the cohesion programmes under the current MFF and by the EAFRD; notes that EAFRD decommitments are expected when the programmes of the previous MFF close in 2026, while cohesion programmes for the 2021-2027 MFF face significant risks of decommitments from 2027 onwards;

98. Recalls that in 2024, several amendments to the cohesion policy and legal framework, namely STEP and RESTORE, entered into force; highlights the importance of these instruments in enhancing Union competitiveness and addressing the consequences of natural disasters; reiterates, nevertheless, that constant amendments to the cohesion policy framework lead to legal uncertainty and instability and risk undermining the long-term structural cohesion policy objectives of reducing disparities across the Union; stresses that cohesion policy needs a stable regulatory framework in order to provide predictability for beneficiaries;

99. Reiterates its deep concern over the disproportionate impact that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine continues to have on the Union's eastern regions bordering Russia and/or Belarus; draws attention to the costs borne by these regions as a result of their shared border with hostile neighbouring countries, notably the respective Member States' need to direct public funding into security, defence and preparedness, while facing dramatically reduced resources due to a disruption in economic activities, cross-border trade and other exchanges; is concerned, further, about the loss in Union financial support experienced by some border regions as a result of amendments to cohesion funds under the current programming period, notably to ERDF funds initially earmarked for cross-border cooperation with Russia and Belarus and funds reallocated in the context of the 2025 cohesion mid-term review (MTR);

100. Underlines that territorial cohesion requires strengthening local economic resilience, for example through sustainable tourism, protection of cultural assets, youth employment and vocational skills development, including in green reconstruction, energy efficiency and civil protection services; stresses the importance of Union cohesion policy for economic and territorial convergence and development in the regions of the Union, as well as for supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; stresses the need to safeguard access to essential services in rural and remote areas and calls on the Commission to assess whether Union spending effectively contributes to reducing depopulation pressure;

101. Highlights the increasing exposure of certain regions, including Mediterranean coastal and inland territories, to climate-related risks such as storms, floods, coastal erosion and drought stress; stresses that prevention and adaptation measures are more cost-effective than post-disaster reconstruction; stresses the necessity of frontloading investments in risk prevention, hydraulic safety, slope stability, nature-based solutions and climate-resilient infrastructure, including sustainable ports, intermodal logistics, rail connectivity and resilient water systems, leakage reduction, resilient irrigation and smart water management, in order to ensure rapid and measurable resilience outcomes, enhance territorial resilience and safeguard the effectiveness of Union spending;

102. Highlights the Commission Internal Audit Service’s (IAS) recommendation, in its audit carried out in 2024 on assurance building processes for the funds implemented under shared management, that the single audit strategy of DG REGIO, DG EMPL and the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) needs to be updated as certain elements were not sufficiently clear or have not been sufficiently developed at this stage of the programming period; also notes the IAS’ recommendation that DG REGIO, which also implements the EU Solidarity Fund under shared and indirect management, needs to further improve its design and effective management;