EU Fund for cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security

Key points

The EESC:

• welcomes the Commission’s desire to simplify and to ensure more flexibility, but believes that the simplification provided for requires concrete guarantees in order for it to be effective. In order to safeguard the distinct identity and core mission of the EU’s key policies, their identity, visibility, predictability and long-term objectives must be preserved, ensuring that flexibility does not come at the expense of the regions, communities, sectors and the most vulnerable groups;

• is concerned that grouping a diverse set of investment needs such as agriculture, fisheries, cohesion and security under one umbrella could create competition between priorities and weaken long-term guarantees; strongly opposes this approach since it risks diluting resources, impairing efforts to achieve the climate and digital transitions;

• expressly warns that the architecture of the multifunds might fuel distributional conflicts. Both at the beginning and during the course of the future funding period, there is a risk of structural competition between the social dimension, regional and rural development, and security and migration policy;

• opposes the shift in responsibility from the regional to the national level, as this undermines the subsidiarity principle, territoriality, multi-level governance and trust in the EU;

• stresses that the effective functioning of the national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs) will require the strong and effective involvement of local and regional partners, the social partners and civil society organisations, as well as of representatives of sectors and industries, both in the programming phase and when it comes to implementation, management, monitoring, evaluation and control;

• is proposing to have a social partners and civil society organisation check alongside a regional check;

• stresses that the partnership must be reflected in each chapter of the NRPP and emphasises the need for a balanced representation of relevant partners in the monitoring committees;

• calls on the European Commission to carry out, without delay, the revision of the European Code of Conduct on Partnership;

• suggests introducing a penalty system for cases of a lack of effective, meaningful and cross-cutting involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations;

• considers that cohesion policy should be further consolidated, since it is weakened by the proposal; calls for guarantees to protect regions and cities, especially where Member States may exclude them;

• stresses that more imperative rules are needed to guarantee the involvement of local actors and cities and that subnational interests must not be penalised;

• calls for specific thematic concentrations on food security, inequality, ageing with dignity and civic engagement, with support for vulnerable groups, volunteers and social economy actors;

• warns that social objectives must be clearly defined, and stresses that the social spending target of 14% should exclusively target ESF objectives such as qualifications and training as well as support for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups;

• strongly criticises the absence of a dedicated Just Transition Fund and warns against merging the just transition with the clean transition.