30.12.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 498/49
... and focusing on a genuine partnership of trust with local and regional authorities...
47. notes a certain centralisation of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy and an undermining of the partnership principle and the role of regional authorities in establishing investment needs as part of operational programmes; 48. welcomes the intention expressed in the Cohesion Report to strengthen multilevel governance and the partnership principle; 49. supports the recent initiative for a European community of practice on partnership 2021-2027, which should lead to significant improvements in the European code of conduct on partnership; 50. highlights the unique approach of cohesion policy, where the ESIF operational programmes are based on an analysis of territorial needs established at local level and follow a fully participatory and democratic process, contrary to the national recovery plans supported by the RRF, which were largely designed without the involvement of the regions; 51. therefore calls on the Commission to enhance the role of the regions in the management of the Structural and Investment Funds and to strengthen the legislative provisions linked to the partnership, particularly in view of the post-2027 period Cohesion policy as a tool for reversing demographic decline in inland, rural and mountainous areas 52. is concerned about the increasingly ageing population, declining birth rates, and the depopulation of inland areas, especially rural and mountainous areas; 53. notes that economic and social disruptions, most recently caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine, affect young people’s future expectations; 54. highlights the importance of establishing an EU strategy for demography, taking into account in particular the opportunities offered by legal migration flows within the EU, while strengthening coordination on illegal immigration and providing support and protection to refugees; A special focus on regions with permanent geographical disadvantages 55. regrets that the Cohesion Report only superficially addresses the challenges faced by regions with permanent geographical disadvantages and the outermost regions; 56. calls for a special focus on the regions with permanent geographical disadvantages defined in Article 174 TFEU, namely island regions, regions with very low population density, cross-border and mountain regions, and on the outermost regions in any reform project concerning the future of cohesion policy; 57. emphasises the important work that has been carried out in the European Parliament on the issue of cohesion of islands and recognises the importance of a pact for European islands; 58. with regard to rural areas, welcomes the fact that the Cohesion Report recognises the potentially negative impact of demographic transitions on cohesion in Europe; therefore calls on the European Commission to step up future funding and instruments under cohesion policy and CAP strategic plans, in particular through minimum thresholds taking into account the EU-wide share of population and territory of rural areas, for the regions recognised in Article 174 and cooperation between urban and rural areas, each of which has comparative and complementary advantages with a view to harmonious territorial development; 59. at the same time highlights the positive role metropolitan areas play in ensuring cohesive development through distributing wealth and benefits in a given area and forging more efficient urban-rural links.
Reiterates that the GDP per capita does not give the full picture about their level of development and recommends the use of the Social Progress Index methodology to identify the most pressing challenges that need to be financed in the metropolitan areas by Cohesion Policy funds (2);
(2)
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The challenges of metropolitan regions and their position in the future Cohesion Policy post-2020 (OJ C 79, 10.3.2020, p. 8).