This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Thank you, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the European Week of Regions and Cities.

My name is Johanna Schima, and I'll be guiding you through this session.

A few years ago,

I spent 3 seasons on a motorcycle riding through every EU country to film cohesion projects for Estonian television.

I've seen a lot of cohesion projects in my life, and that might be the reason why I'm standing here on this stage.

Now I have to say that Europe is quite big when you approach it on a motorbike and aim to actually reach every corner.

Now, what stayed with me is not the pain, the pain of riding the motorbike,

that was fun, but what stayed with me was actually how different Europe's regions are.

These days in Brussels, you might have heard, competitiveness is a popular word.

Europe obviously needs to innovate faster, attract investment and raise productivity. All of that is super important.

But there is another question as well,

and that is just as important where in Europe will that growth happen and who will actually feel it?

Many of our capital regions, as you know best, are already racing ahead,

but they don't automatically pull the rest of the country with them, do they?

And when regions fall behind, that's when people might feel left behind as well.

So ladies and gentlemen,

this afternoon we will talk about how every region can contribute to a more competitive Europe and what cohesion policy actually has to do to make that happen.

You'll hear from two national governments, two regional leaders,

one of them also representing the European Committee of the Regions, and you'll hear from European business.

A practical note, dear friends, some of our speakers will use French, Italian and Slovenian.

Interpretation is available in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Polish,

and Slovenian will be interpreted into English only,

so please check the according channels on your headsets.

We also have an artist with us, Teresa Almeida, who is actually drawing our conversation real time as we go,

so we'll take a look of what she has captured along the way.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, to open this session,

I'm delighted to welcome onto the stage the European Commission's Executive Vice President for Cohesion and reforms,

Rafael Elvira.

Thank you, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, ministers and regional presidents, experts.

Competitiveness has moved to the center of the European debate.

It has become a key word that we use again and again,

but it is not always easy to grasp what it really means.

Many reports in recent years have made the case for action to boost competitiveness. Europe needs to act and act quickly.

Highlighting the need for massive investment in European competitiveness to close a widening innovation gap,

to decarbonize the economy,

to invest in the strategic sectors and to reduce our strategic dependencies.

Cohesion policy has been investing in competitors for decades, supporting businesses,

strengthening regions and turning investment into tangible results on the ground,

contributing to Europe's competitors one step at a time.

Because Europe's economy is not powered by just a few engines, but by many.

This is also what we mean with this year's motto of the European Week of Regions and Cities strong regions,

a stronger Europe.

Europe can only be as strong as its regions,

and European competitiveness cannot be achieved by a few regions acting alone.

It must be built across Europe, in every region, and cohesion policy is a key driver for this.

Cohesion policy is already Europe's main investment policy.

Over 58% of our investments,

around €220 billion support the objectives of the competitive compass.

These investments build stronger capabilities in institutions, new investments and collaborations,

innovative products and the technologies, better services for citizens and firms.

In other words, these investments build more competitive regions and in turn, a more competitive Union.

This is important because competitiveness is not only about what happens in Europe's leading centers.

Europe needs world leading hubs in AI, biotech, quantum and other strategic technologies.

But we also need the capacity to develop and use these technologies across Europe.

We need these capabilities in all parts of Europe, supported by strong connections,

the right skills and the value chains in every region.

The benefits and opportunities of technology must be felt everywhere.

This is not only about technology,

it is also about the conditions that allow businesses to invest and the people to build their lives.

In the face of industrial and technological transformation, we need to create opportunities.

Address gaps in quality jobs, housing, healthcare and education,

and invest in the infrastructure that communities and businesses depend on.

Because these issues are closely connected,

businesses are more likely to invest where they can find the skills they need reliable infrastructure and good connections.

People are more likely to stay and build their future where they can find good jobs,

affordable housing, and the quality of public services.

This is what makes regions more competitive, and this is at the heart of the modernization of cohesion policy.

Last year's midterm review gave member states and regions the possibility on a voluntary basis to reallocate resources to five new priorities competitiveness,

housing, defense, water, and energy.

Member states and regions decided to mobilize EUR €35 billion for these new strategic priorities.

Of these, more than €15 billion were used for competitiveness,

investing in concrete projects that are critical for Europe's competitiveness and for our strategic autonomy in a changing world.

This shows that competitive is a concrete demand coming directly from the ground,

from our regions, local authorities and communities.

Cohesion policy can respond to changing circumstances while remaining firmly rooted in the realities of our regions.

It also shows the importance of giving Member States and regions the flexibility to decide where investments can have the greatest impact,

but the mid term review was just a first step.

The Commission proposal for the future EU budget puts even more focus on competitiveness,

both through the European Competitive Fund and the future national and regional partnership plans.

The plans will empower regions by bringing together the main levels of competitive.

Greater flexibility will be given to Member States and regions in the allocation of resources.

So that regions can target investments to their specific needs,

make the best of their specific assets and turn Europe's regional diversity into a source of competitive advantage.

This is important because there is no single model of competitiveness.

What works for a major industrial region will not necessarily work for a rural area.

An islands, an outermost region or a region undergoing industrial transition.

Our approach therefore needs to recognize these different realities while keeping a clear focus on our common European objective.

New investment will help make our regions better places to live,

work and invest, and at the same time, more resilient and secure.

Ultimately, competitence is about creating the conditions for people and businesses to succeed in every part of Europe.

It means good jobs, strong businesses,

reliable infrastructure and communities where people can see opportunities for themselves.

From themselves and their families, and this is where your experience matters.

You know the strengths of your regions, you know where investments are needed,

where opportunities exist and where barriers remain.

The success of the next investments will depend not only on the resources available,

but on how well we use them.

And how well we connect the European priorities with the realities on the ground.

Your voices and experience will therefore be essential in making this work in practice.

I look forward to our discussion and to working with you as we take this forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Executive Vice President, you've given our panel a lot to work with.

Ladies and gentlemen, and with that, let me please invite our panelists onto the stage.

So from Slovenia, the Minister for Local Self-government, cohesion and Regional Development,

Monika Kirbisrois, with your applause, ladies and gentlemen.

From Lithuania, we are joined by the Vice Minister of Finance, Ruta Tarik.

From Corsica, President of the Assembly of Corsica and President of the European Alliance Group in the Committee of the Regions,

Marie-Antoinette Maupertuis.

And Undersecretary to the President of the Lombardy region, Raffaele Cattaneo.

Last but certainly not least, we have the Chief economist of Business Europe, Luisio Vignes de Souza.

Well, a pleasure to see you all here.

While our panelists really settle in on stage, let's hear from you,

the audience, the one keeping all those multiple engines of Europe actually running.

Now there's a QR QR code on the screen, be, be so kind and please.

Scan it with a mobile device, and when you scan it,

it takes you to a slido page where you please select square gold room.

Now after you do that, you should see a very simple question.

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of cohesion policy? Please give me one word.

What is the first thing that comes to your mind?

Now while our dear audience is typing,

perhaps we can help them with a bit of an inspiration from the stage, Mr. Vinhas de Souza, Perhaps we can start with you. What, what's your word? What would you put out? Development.

I am a Portuguese national, and we all know from our national experience how fundamental cohesion,

if properly used, can kickstart and support sustainable growth in the member states. Development, good words, Minister Gerbs Roy. What would you type down?

Mr So firstly,

I would like to say hello also the Vice President of the European Commission, Mr. Fico, and everybody else.

So the word cohesion is coming from Latin, it means connection and I think this is the most important meaning of the word,

so we are connected between each other and for Slovenia is cohesion policy is very important.

And with these funds we also managed to develop since we entered the European Union.

Do you have a word coming into your mind about cohesion policy? Just one word? I sure do. Cooperation. Cooperation. Excellent work.

Do we have a word cloud forming from the audience as well? Let me see if we do. Any of you typed in that word? There are quite a lot of words. Cooperation is a popular word, I see. Great words.

Unfortunately we don't see those words in front of us, so ladies and gentlemen, you just have to evaluate,

are all the words there, or would there be a word that you would like to add?

OK, now we see them cooperation, regions, growth, community together, great word.

I think we're all in this together, but we're all in this together in this panel,

so perhaps we can now start with the questions, and again, let's start from Slovenia. Minister Monika Ertl, so Slovenia.

I mean, the economy, the economic performance of Slovenia is remarkable,

but not every region equally shares it.

So how do you bring along the ones that perhaps fall behind? Yes, you are absolutely right. Regarding the economic growth. We are reaching quite good solutions.

We are among countries that have the highest level of economic growth.

But regardless,

the differences between the regions among those that are very developed and those that are less developed are still existing.

Personally, I believe and we talk about this a lot on national level.

The reason for that is that we don't have the political regions established as,

for example, Italians, Austrians, Croatians do.

So one of our priority projects in Slovenia, in Slovenia now,

as is the priority project of current government,

is to establish the political regions.

40% of Slovenians regularly commute to Ljubljana, to our capital. And for this fact.

Some regions, although people still live there,

have people only going to sleep there because people commute to the capital every day.

The same story is happening with most of technological companies or research institutes.

We have most of those in our central or western region.

And this is something we must take into account when Making programs for 2028 when we think about smart specialization,

the NRPs.

And when we allocate funds, we need to allocate them to less developed regions as well.

So it is not just about economic development of the country that Makes people stay,

but people also need good mobility options, quality public service.

They need to have educational institutions where they live,

health services provided, also digital connections.

We are discussing this a lot during these days in Brussels and Slovenia, of course, supports the new strategy,

the right to stay, and this is something we will gladly take into account when developing our programs.

Let me take the discussion to a region which I know pretty well, the Baltics. We have Vice Minister Gortari here.

Lithuania, just like Estonia by coincidence, lives on the EU's eastern border,

and some of your towns are losing people.

So what does it actually mean for regions trying to compete? How do you level that playing field?

Well, I do come from Vilnius region that is nearby the Belarus border.

And let me be very open with you today and honest with you today and share some personal experience. Just, it's not a, a movie scenario. Try to be in my place, right?

I'm at work, my children are at school or football or whatever.

And then, the military, military drone enters the Lithuanian airspace and the sirens go wailing, right,

and that's the moment when you get scared, but you don't think about yourself.

You think about your children, are they safe? Did they reach the shelter? Are they alone?

Are they scared, how scared they are, right, and.

It's the most difficult moment for a mother not to know if her children are safe.

And then the sirens stop, and they may not go every day.

But the fear and the uncertainty, it stays,

and it affects every single area of our lives.

People personally, communities, cities, businesses, traffic,

healthcare system, education, everything.

So for Lithuania, security and competitiveness, they are inseparable. They go together along.

Because businesses invest and families build their future where they see. Opportunity and predictability.

And uncertainty about security undermines the confidence behind both decisions.

And the whole of Lithuania is considered to be the eastern border region.

We cannot just take one city or one region because part of Lithuania borders with Belarus,

another part with Belarus and Russia in Kalinrad.

So, and for this small economy,

all the effects of being behind the aggressor behind the war zone spreads evenly through the whole country.

And let's say security threats also reach well beyond the border.

Because let's say this September, the NATO The NATO aircraft,

they stopped the military drone in Kos,

which is in the very middle of Lithuania.

It doesn't border any other country, just Lithuanian cities,

so we see how small the country is and how fast we can be reached.

And our proximity to Russia and Belarus carries a real economic cost,

and it holds back our growth and competitiveness.

The European Commission estimates that every 1000 kilometers closer to the wall is associated with around 2% points less annual GDP growth.

And the Bank of Lithuania estimates that without the shock caused by Russian war against Ukraine,

our GDP would be around 6.3% higher today, and that's around €5 billion.

And that means higher opportunities for our regions to build labor markets,

to build businesses, and to create better life conditions. Also, tourism, right?

Lithuania's tourism recovery after, after pandemia remains well behind the EU average.

Because we are not seen as a nice estimation to, to go to.

And let's say between October 2025 and May 2026, the airport closures,

because of the meteorological balloons, disrupted travel almost every week on average.

And when I say meteorurgical balloons, that means that they just smuggle some goods from Belarus,

and that's a part of the hybrid attacks.

And also we see this pressure directly in our efforts to attract investment.

Let's say fewer potential investments are considering Lithuania for new projects, and even when the business case is strong,

the security uncertainty makes it harder to turn into a real landed project. And demographic decline adds to this.

Lithuania's population is projected to shrink by around 20% in the next 30 years. So where investment is already weak.

The loss of young people makes growth harder still.

But we do not accept this as our destiny.

And we work to create opportunities for young people.

And these pressures, they reinforce one another, it's like a snake eating its own tail. Weaker investment means fewer opportunities. Fewer opportunities encourage people to leave.

More little labor force, workforce, make the next next investment even weaker and harder to attract.

So, as I said, we do not choose this as our destiny,

and we can overcome these challenges, but we cannot do it alone. Vice Minister, thank you. Very familiar challenges indeed, which you shared. And now, let's move to thank you. Thank you very much. Now let's move to Madame Maupertuis. Now you speak for Europe's regions.

What can actually cohesion investments and reforms really do for Europe's competitiveness?

First of all, thank you very much for the invitation.

I'm very happy to be here with you and I'm very happy to hear the Vice Prime Minister,

and we all understand that time are changing, and evolving.

We are not, of course, at the same time, the, the, the the the production of the first cohesion policy on the The single market, this is a new era of threats on several regions and even in Corsica, if, if we are in Corsica, 100s and thousands of kilometers from the front, then we, we,

we feel the solidarity and we feel you very much, and therefore, we need to Rethink the way we think about the policies and our strategies as Europe as a as a whole,

and regarding the reforms, we always considered that reform and investment were opposed as cohesion and competitiveness are opposed,

but it's not, it's not at all, because reforms are necessary. They are necessary to improve the investments.

And the investments are not only investment to, to come back on a structural level, as we benefited from,

but today's investments are strategic investments that aim, and we heard,

the aim to protect, the population,

to increase technology and reduce dependencies.

And allowing us also to to,

to be more competitive as Europe in the world.

And those reforms are have to go with the investments,

I think in regarding competitiveness now that can be heard as a bad word for some regions.

Well, today, we have to understand that this, cohesion policy was created by Jacques Delors at the time of the single market because he knew that this,

goal of competitiveness, Could, help the, the, the imbalance in between regions,

and we needed this, this policy.

And I, and the,

the vice president said so before the investments that we realized and implemented represent 58% of the competitiveness investment that we are doing in the region. So, regions.

Are in the center of threefold, three-fold, partnership with which are investments,

whether we're talking about, material or immaterial, we are talking about strategic investments as well. To, to fight against the threats.

So I was saying it before, competitiveness as well, to improve our competitiveness in terms of prices,

but also of prices, the attractivity of the territories, and the necessity of reforms as well.

And what we say to the region committee is that In this new dynamic, in this new way of thinking about all of this, we need to have very strong, regional authorities and they need to have a seat at the table,

and this is also, part of the luannual Financial Fund and, and all of these, regional plans, we need as regions,

whatever region we're talking about now because I shared the idea that each region has its concurrent concurrential advantage. In Corsica, we don't produce a weapon.

We don't, have any industrial products, but we are very competitive in terms of tourism,

for example, because, we, we have, a, a beautiful region.

And each in our domain, we have the capacity to improve our competitiveness and we can allow to,

we can allow Europe, the big Europe family, to be better on a global level.

So the role of regions is fundamental, whether whatever development level we're talking about. If we have reforms, then it is.

The responsibility of the reform, to, if we're talking about the state's competency, then, the state has to be responsible for the reform and the impact If they are positive or negative,

and And whether we're talking about before the implementation or after the implementation of public policies,

we as regions, we should be part of performance indicators. Performances, we are not afraid of this.

I live on an island and you have to believe me, we are performing every day to deal with all the constraints that we are dealing with on a daily basis,

whether I'm talking about strikes about transport issues, and our,

entrepreneurs are very performant, I can tell you this.

So, the necessity of performance, asks us to agree on certain indicators, on common indicators,

and I am sure of one thing that, we need to be after 2018,

28, sorry, we need to Have the regions.

Being at the table for the investments, and it is a huge potential for all regions.

And I think it's linked directly to competitiveness and reforms should allow us to have more efficiency and regions should be associated to this dynamic because once more,

I think this is the, the theme of, the topic of, this week.

We need the regions and we need strong regions. I think this is quite clear.

Europe will be strong if we have strong regions, and this is why development should be well balanced.

The world balance is very important as well, I think. Let me bring the conversation to Lombardi.

Lombardi being one of Europe's industrial engines, one of the many engines as we heard,

but certainly one of those strong engines.

But the world outside, it's getting tougher, isn't it?

So how is Lombardy coping with it and what's holding it back right now? Well, thank you.

And first of all, let me say I'm replacing President Fontana because his flight from Rome is late.

We are using Lombardy to know that the things who comes from Rome not always works well and so,

allow me to replace our governor.

First of all, I would answer to the first question. If I have to say a word.

Who suggest me the word cohesion, I will say competitiveness.

Because There is no European competitiveness if the territories like Lombardy, but like any region in Europe, the territories that produce, innovate, create jobs are not enabled to fully express their potential,

and this is the reason why the biggest mistake we can do, in my opinion,

in our opinion in Lombardy, is to put cohesion against competitiveness.

Cohesion and competitiveness are the two faces of the same medal. And this is my opinion.

The, the best mistake that the new MFF could do possibly.

To think that competitiveness is a top down process, so coming from Brussels to the central government, to the regions, to the local authorities,

to any single corner in Europe, and not a bottom up process, coming from the territories,

from any single corner, and taking into account the differences of Europe.

Because let me remember the motto of the European Union in varietate Concordia,

that means unite in diversity. A euro without, without diversity.

Not able to support the diversity, to value the diversity among the territories, among the regions, and not just among the regions,

also inside the region, because in my region there are many differences in competitiveness in the different areas.

The mountain area of Lombardy is completely different than the metropolitan area.

Milan and the southern part of Lombardia there is more developed in agriculture and so on.

So if we cannot take into account the diversity, in my humble opinion, in our humble opinion, we cannot be able to support real European competitiveness, and I say This statement starting from the experience of our region, 10 million inhabitants,

so Out of 60 million in Italy, 1/6 of the Italian population, but almost 1/4 of Italian GDP,

around 30% of Italian import export, more than half of foreign direct investment,

so really an engine of Italian and European competitiveness.

But to be able to express our strengths, we need European support, and we are using the cohesion policy funds precisely to support competitiveness in vocational training,

in innovation tools for small and medium companies, in new technologies.

This is what we are doing every day support European competitiveness in reality, and this is true also because regions, municipalities, local authorities know better than Brussels and Rome in our case,

the differences in the situation of the reality in the reality of our territories,

and this is the reason why we think that the principle of subsidiarity cannot be just an institutional formula.

It is written in the European Treaty, because it must be a principle of any European policies,

and the principle of subsidiarity means a bottom up process, not top down.

So the new MFF is not just a problem of the amount of resources,

and of course for cohesion and agricultural policies, it is a most important point.

But in my opinion, mainly it's an issue of vision,

which kind of Europe we really would create and support for the future years.

We want a Europe which looks like China or the United States of Trump,

so this idea that any single decision must come from the center to the territories,

or we have, we want a Europe.

That in the opposite way would create a development according with our history, with our culture, with our differences,

so a bottom up Europe where the regions and the territories have a central role,

not just as the beneficiaries, but as a policymaker,

as a planner of the cohesion policies.

This is, in my opinion, In our opinion, the most important political point.

So we are not, we are not just defending certain resources that are important for our development, of course.

In our region in the last programming period we have used more or less 4 billion, 4.5 billion of European funds in the seven years,

and we are risky to to to to lose, to miss at least 1 billion.

So it could mean that we have to stop vocational training program in the middle in a five year program we have to stop after 2 years,

after 3 years, and it cannot happen, of course.

But Indeed, it is a question of which idea of Europe we would support for the future, and in my opinion,

if we change the vision of cohesion in a more centralistic way, so giving to the national governments,

for instance, the key of the Partnership program, the national and regional partnership program.

We are at the same time weakening both the quality of planning and the capacity of implementation.

Let me say, we will, we will remember to all the decision makers in Europe that the capacity of concrete implementation and cohesion are in the regions,

in the local authorities, in the territories, not in Brussels and.

Thank you for making a very powerful and passionate point there.

Now, let me take the conversation to Mr. Vinhas de Souza.

The midterm review actually made cohesion funding more flexible.

Is that something that actually the business community was expecting?

Is it actually something that you wanted to see?

Many, many thanks for both the question and for the invitation to be here.

Allow me to start by conveying my strong support to the statements of my fellow panelists.

First, on the sense that there is no inconsistency between competitiveness and cohesion. They should both be reinforcing concepts.

And second, on the notion that cohesion must be a bottom-up process.

I would actually go further down beyond the region to the level of companies,

real organizations which hire people, invest, pay taxes at the regional level. On your question.

I actually had the pleasure of conveying the position of Business Europe.

We represent 22 million companies in the European Union.

We hire around 150 million inhabitants, right,

so a third of the European population works on companies which are represented by my organization.

We actually conveyed with our counterparts from the region,

our position in relation to the midterm review already during the course of last year.

And I would summarize this as a strong support for the notion that A,

you should have a greater degree of flexibility in terms of the usage of resources of cohesion for a very simple reason.

I assume that everybody has noted that we live in a somewhat unstable world,

which implies that you have to have the capacity to adjust to all sorts of external shocks.

Or as my old boss Claude van der used it to say, the polycrisis,

which are now a perma poly crisis hitting us every single day.

So we are strongly supportive of the notion of flexibility in terms of the application of cohesion funds and also of the concentration of this in terms of the new priorities that were defined it,

competitiveness broadly defined it, keeping in mind the very wide definition of this concept from a regional level,

from a company level, from a level of our institutions.

This said, From the point of view of business, you must strike a balance between both flexibility. And predictability.

In the end of the day, if I put money on the ground as a company, I'm not doing this just for tomorrow.

Typically, any investment of any company is going to be a long-term commitment.

You put a factory on the ground wherever in the European Union,

you expect that thing to be there producing, paying wages,

hiring people, generating innovation for decades to come.

So one thing that is necessary when you talk about flexibility is to do this admittedly tricky balancing act between predictability.

Businesses need predictability in terms of funding, so the regions incidentally.

So you have to strike this type of balance.

Another thing that is important for us and that we think should be potentially better reflected when we think about the evolution of this.

Successful framework which is cohesion is how do you integrate the notion of the feedback from social partners. We companies, we are social partners, right?

We hire people, we pay taxes, we are there on the ground.

The way that the feedback that is necessary for the successful usage of those funds is incorporated has to be more structured,

has to be more timely in our point of view,

and you can extend out the same sort of rationale to other types of social actors.

You should think of this as an expansion and deepening of the already existing consultation framework that we have for cohesion policy. Allow me also to make a point. I am a Portuguese citizen. People tend to misspell deluho. They think that I am Italian.

I'm actually a proud citizen of the Portuguese Republic. What do I mean by that? Regions are all different, right?

So we have thousands of different realities in the European Union.

When we think in terms of flexibility, we have to think of a flexibility that fits all of us,

all the realities of our different member states, our regions, and also the realities that our companies are going to be facing on the ground.

Coming from Business Europe, I do have to make a point about simplification.

Which is necessarily one of our first priorities in terms of what we convey to our counterparts at the EU policy making level. This extends to cohesion too.

There are certain types of instruments which can be very complex for you to use,

both from the point of view of a company, but also from the point of view of regions and cities.

We strongly believe that there is a real need for effective simplification in terms of the way that the union uses its instruments.

This does not apply only to cohesion but for all sorts of regulatory and funding frameworks that the EU.

The introduction of the single rulebook is a good beginning, but we think that from the point of view of the actual user,

and we go in terms of the application of the reporting of the controls,

this all needs real effective simplification.

I will conclude now with first one small warning, cohesion is not a crisis adjustment mechanism.

It's a long-term structural policy, and we should not fall into the trap of effectively using.

Even on long term sustainable crisis, cohesion is a sort of a crucial mechanism for crisis.

It should be flexible to deal with changing circumstances,

but we should have other types of mechanisms that deal with the nature of more short term types of crisis. Cohesion is not for that.

To finalize midterm review, we think was an important positive step and first step, as Vice President Fito just indicated,

in the right direction, making the cohesion policy more modern,

more adaptable, more flexible, balancing this with the need for predictability.

We do think that social partners should be involved in the process because this actually improves the outcome of the policy.

We have analysis that shows that when you bring the private sector in,

the outcomes of cohesion funds increase significantly. You deliver more bang for your buck.

We at Business Europe of European businesses in general are ready to play this part in partnership with our EU level policymakers and with the regions on which we operate.

Well, a lot of strong messages from the first half of the panel, ladies and gentlemen.

I forgot to tell you before that you can actually use that same QR code and slido to send in your questions for our panelists.

So if there's a question that has popped into your mind, please scan the QR code, go to the correct room.

We are in the gold hall, and please just choose Q&A, and you can post your questions there.

I promise to take as many as we have time for, but actually,

How would this passionate conversation look as if an artist was drawing it?

Well, this is an answer we don't just have to imagine.

We actually have an artist with us who has drawn this conversation. Let's take a look at the screen. This is what you've heard so far. Teresa Almeida has captured.

What we have spoken so far, but this is not the end of the conversation here,

so I'm sure this picture will become even more colorful and more detailed as we continue this conversation in our second round. And let's begin again with. Roy.

Now they say that size doesn't limit ambition.

Slovenia will be the first country to actually finance a major European project,

Tech for Cure, with cohesion money.

So what has that experience so far taught you about the next budget?

So I took the ministry over in June this year.

I'm working on in the area of cohesion policy since 2004 and I was always very.

Very happy because this project was the first one which I signed after I started to work as a minister.

And Tech for Cure, this is the project which is in, in framework of IPSI projects.

So Slovenia is a small country was chosen between 10 countries and 10 projects and this initiative IPSI is very important.

We have the main partner in Slovenia, one of the biggest Slovenian companies. This company is called Kozyleb.

And we have here supported 12 Slovenian companies and research organizations.

The project is worth 6.6 million and it will go until 2030.

It is very innovative in the area of health.

It is for cancer treatment, so we are supporting medicinal.

Solutions, digital solutions, artificial intelligence in this area and also next to this, the project will be excluded,

will be incorporated in all Slovenian regions, and it will be connected in the cloud. It is very innovative project.

And I'm happy that Slovenia was one of the first countries which received these funds and we wish more of these projects in the future.

I would like to say also that some processes are very complicated regarding this project,

so we need a lot of flexibility and we need a lot of simplification not only on the EU level but also on national level also.

In our own country we are complicating sometimes things too much and our priority is to make a lot of processes much easier especially for the European projects.

We are very happy that we received these funds in in form of IPSI and we wish more such projects in the future. Minister, strong regions, strong Europe. That is the motto of this week.

How can the new national and regional partnership plans make that real actually?

How do you see the new plans actually work for Lithuania and will also regions be involved when drawing up those plans,

because as we already heard from the panel, this process should be bottom up. You're sitting in the government. Do you see it the same?

Yes, the Stronger Regions, Stronger Europe is the ambition that Lithuania fully shares, and my fellow panelist,

he just took some words out of my mouth about the bottom-up decision-making model.

And for me, stronger regions, they mean something very, very practical that giving each region.

The tools to build on its strengths and respond to its challenges, and of course in this process right now creating our NRPP,

we truly do listen to our regions and local authorities because they are the ones to decide what's best for them.

And because those challenges in every region may be very different, not only from country to country, right?

But to city to city, region to region.

And let's take our capital, Vilnius in Lithuania, right?

We have Vilnius, a fast growing European capital, but in the same region,

we have rural municipalities along the border with Belarus facing completely different demographic,

economic and security issues.

So we cannot invest everywhere in exactly the same way and expect the same results.

This is where I see the real potential in the NRPPs.

Because they should give us the flexibility, as it was said already,

to respond to their specific needs and strengths to each region rather than applying the same solutions everywhere.

And we have already seen why this matters.

Through the midterm review, the specific situation of the Eastern European regions was recognized at the EU level,

and Lithuania redirected more than €550 million towards security and resilience.

So the future plans should build on this approach, not as a temporary response, but as a lasting support.

And at the same time, strong regions are not only about addressing weaknesses,

they're about unlocking their strengths.

And let's say we have one city in Lithuania, Toraa,

it has made green transitions part of its regional identity. And let's say Lithuania's growing biotechnology ecosystem.

Just a couple of months ago,

we opened a huge bioCity where they make amazing researches and even do the 3D printing of human skin and I have the ambition to print human organs in,

in the future.

So, and so this shows how sustained investment in research, talent,

and infrastructure can create high added value and contribute to Europe's competitiveness.

And regions also become stronger when they learn from each other.

And this year, one of our city, city Kolas, formalized its partnership with Boblingen in Germany,

and what really amazes me most that this learning from each other goes both ways. It's a two-way street. What do Germans learn from us?

They learn about civil security and preparedness, and they take this, expertise to them, to their homes.

So the vice, the executive vice president stressed that all levels of government should be involved.

Madame Oportu, in practice,

how do we actually make sure that the regions help set priorities and not just implement the decisions made while somewhere high above them?

Well, we have this practical Lithuanian, but maybe we can take Madame. Messy. Thank you.

Priorities have been defined by the European Commission through its state, its member states. Now, if you rub.

Is willing to be efficient in implementing its priorities. And making them operational within the regions. Well, then Europe must be.

Close to the people it operates for, this goes without saying.

Now, the main challenge that we're faced with today. Is to get everyone to work together. Of course, this sounds. Like an evidence, but it's not.

We have so many different institutional situations with varying degrees of institutional autonomy.

So getting everyone to work together would be one first step, like Cattaneo and Rafael said,

it's also, it also means applying the principle of subsidiarity. This means working for the citizens.

The 2nd point in order to facilitate things. Is to effectively identify. The competitive edges of each region.

Yet again we're not only talking about industry in Europe. There are agricultural regions in Europe. With strategic resources.

And I think it's important to recall this.

Especially when it comes to security and defense.

Agricultural and agri-food industries have to be considered.

So as not to be targeted by our competitors as a weakness of ours.

So we also need to escalate experiences and initiatives from the field.

And also review what we've been calling for a very long time multilevel governance.

This is a very easy word to use, multi-level governance.

Now in terms of implementation, it's a whole different story. The Institutions.

Have defined multi-level governance as the need to consult,

fine, but this does no longer suffice.

Nowadays we need to go beyond consultation we need. To look at the.

Grassroot necessities and Entail them in crafting European policies.

This has to be reflected in the multiple levels of decision making,

whether state level, interstate level. Local and regional authorities. We need to simplify.

Things on the one hand, as Madame Lavi, as the vice president said. We need to simplify overcomplicated processes.

We need to implement multi-level governance by respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

We also need to place trust in ourselves.

This is necessary Especially in today's context within European states.

Among ourselves, let's trust each other and lastly, simplification. Also means Simpler processes that we demand.

To the European Committee of the Regions as well as to all of the EU territories.

Lastly, We are pressured by the current events. COVID, wars.

At the EU borders,

we have EU member states or European countries that are bordering countries that are at war. There is also the threat of foreign.

Foreign influences, foreign political influences, therefore we need to react at the same time,

we need to be able to.

To look out for the future, we need to prepare for future shocks.

Now we've been experiencing a series of shocks. We need to learn from that.

We need to wonder what tomorrow, what tomorrow will look like in Europe, and we have to wonder what the futures,

and again I'm saying futures, not only the future, but the futures in Europe are going to look like. That means building our futures together.

And for that, back to what I was saying, we need to put trust in each other. Again, this means subsidiarity simplifying territorial.

Future outlook in order to better, make decisions together,

to better take action together and. To have a better approach of. A common citizen-based Europe.

Otherwise, it's doomed to failure, especially in the current context. We need cohesion. So Mr.

Kataja, I wonder, how do you find this perfect balancing point?

How much freedom should a region actually have to choose its own priorities,

and where do you actually have this master plan developed in Brussels and in your country's government about the future challenges?

So how do you find that sweet spot to balance?

Of course we hope to be able to be part,

to be a real part of the implementation of this national regional plan.

Let me say I'm quite skeptical because the first impression is in the opposite direction,

a direction of centralization, also in Brussels.

The first technical meetings have been made with the Secretariat, the reform Secretariat, not with the DG radio,

and I'm quite worried about the future, on the future of DG Radio.

Do we have a DG ratio in the future or not, for instance?

And it's not a theoretical question because the new MFF probably include a different organization and the four headings simply.

Does not ask for a digGH, but, the, the, I,

I want to look to the problem in a different perspective.

For instance, we appreciate more flexibility, but more flexibility cannot mean to freeze a 25% of the total amount of the resources,

waiting for something that could happen, because simply it cannot allow us to have a real plan of the resources. We appreciate simplification. But simplification cannot mean centralization.

And we refuse an idea that simplification comes from the reduction of the plans from 450 to 27.

Because I think it simply doesn't mean more efficiency and more effective in the results.

Let me remember what we have done with the cohesion policy funds in my region.

In the former planning period,

The employment rate for people aged From 20 to 75 years grew by 4%.

But for those aged over 55 years by 13%. Is it not inclusion? Is it not cohesion? Is it not competitiveness? The unemployment decreased by 3%.

The early school leaving decreased by 5.4%. The share of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion decreased by 4.1%.

And I can give you Many more examples, around 4,

50,000 workers involved in continuous trading problem,

and 70% of them improve their working conditions.

40 young people involved in education and training path, in particular, investing in ideal technical institutes and vocational training centers,

is it not an example of social cohesion, of better competitiveness.

So we are asking, starting from our experience, a central role in the planning of the next cohesion policy.

And let me remember, I've been a member of the regional government for the last 20 years and for 5 years, president of the regional assembly.

In, in that period 10 years ago, I was also a member of the Committee of the Regional and president of Qatar Commission.

10 years ago, this kind of change in cohesion policies simply was not thinking,

so we cannot imagine, let me say,

Copernica revolution in the European MFF and in cohesion policies.

This is the reason why we as a region and local authorities and local authorities have to raise our voices.

Because on the opposite, something unacceptable in my opinion, is going on in the European policies,

and the European citizens simply reject this idea of what they call an imperial Europe.

Where every decision comes from Brussels and exclude the territories in the decision making process. We cannot accept it. It's not a problem of our power.

It's a problem of the future of Europe and the future of the European dream. And let me conclude.

Competitiveness comes from a Latin word cum pere. It means asking together.

Asking together in Italy we use the word concurrenza from the little run together.

So the idea of development we have in Europe is not the idea of China or the United States.

It's something that has been working together, engaging all the social bodies,

the companies, the trade unions, the families, the citizens.

The opposite idea of development that we have to fight against something or other and to defeat them is a wrong idea of development.

It could be successful in this short time, but in a long period of vision,

in my opinion and the European experience, simply doesn't work.

This is the reason the reason why we are raising our voice to defend this idea of Europe,

to defend our tradition and our roots, and not to.

Be similar other models of development, in my opinion, simply doesn't work and for sure,

do not increase the quality of social cohesion and and people consensus. So thank you.

I wanna I would now like to bring in the audience and make this discussion a bit more interactive.

Thank you to every one of you who has posted your question on Slido.

I'm going to read the first from the mayor of Volga from Estonia has received the most likes.

I don't know who's liking from Estonia, but Martin Kaba is asking strong regions, strong Europe, strong people.

So how do we make the people strong, Mr. De Luca?

I will use the opportunity to reinforce a point that I made on my earlier intervention,

which is that the involvement of the life forces of our companies operating on the ground is a way for you to leverage the resources of cohesion.

I will give you one practical example of that.

Yesterday we, my organization, actually had a session here in which we have a clear example of that of an investment in Narva,

a city that I actually know because I wrote my PhD dissertation on the Central Bank of Estonia. What a nice coincidence. Absolutely.

What this company did, which shows that you can do things with the power of the private sector and cohesion,

even on border war zones, was the following.

They built a company to produce magnets, magnets that we use on electric cars,

on wind turbines that we currently import from China.

They did this with a seed money from cohesion, 20% of the investment.

The other 8% came from us, the private sector.

I think that this shows to you how you can leverage and reinforce things if you bring in the forces of the private sector at the level of the design and at the level of the implementation of policy.

Now, if you allow me one small point in relation to that,

that's not because you're trying to involve large companies here.

The company that did this, in Estonia was a small company.

We are talking here about bringing companies of all types of sizes using financial instruments,

which is something that allows you to leverage a limited amount of resources into a much larger pool of funding coming out of the private sector.

We know that there is a need for learning and creating experience in terms of using all types of financial instruments,

but the private sector has an expertise on that.

So the question is to design the finance in a way that follows the logic of investment. My very final point is the following.

If we all buy the logic of competitiveness as a structural need for the very survival of the EU.

Cohesion is one of the instruments for that.

Other instruments for this are going to be the Horizon Europe, are going to be the European Competitiveness Fund.

We are deeply worried about the megabox that was put out by the Irish presidency during a Saturday morning.

I had my team working on the analysis on these poor kids.

In which you effectively cut down things which are structurally important for the future of the EU.

Cohesion is an important instrument, but to make it even more powerful, you have to interact with other types of financial instruments,

the ECF, Horizon Europe, and do this in a way in which you leverage the resources of the private sector.

That's the way in which you can really make Europe even stronger.

What about weaker regions in industrial countries such as Germany and France that are also affected by the upcoming challenges?

How do we use cohesion policy to actually address that competitiveness issue which perhaps needs our attention?

This is another question coming from the audience who would like to take that. Mr.

In the context that we all know, the cohesion policy allows regional authorities to respond to the needs of the populations, but also to the, the different, businesses, in particular,

to where we, especially in regions where we have a lot of, small, businesses,

we don't, don't all have big businesses that can invest in high-tech, high technologies.

And we have tools today that already help those small businesses and respond to those requirements,

especially after the midterm review.

Of in the 21, 27 programmation, we saw, I think, for, for Corsica but also for other regions,

we saw that we could, reuse the fund for new priorities. Us, it was housing. Why housing?

Because, The population in Corsica can't find good housing because of tourism now, but it's hard to find the, the right balance with from one side, tourism and eco-tourism is very important for us, of course, and, we, we bring competitiveness with the tourism,

but tourism brings also some issues on the housing side, so we needed to invest in housing and we needed to modernize as well in terms of,

energetic,

transition and the ERDF fund helped us to do so. So I think we can work. Together and it helped. Our own industry and housing industry.

So you can see that cohesion policy when it's well used and I'm coming back to what we said,

the, the, the link between cohesion and competitiveness.

We create competitiveness, we reinforce the different businesses,

and we also respond to a vital need, which is, housing policy, for example.

So once more, if We have more coordination, more cohesion,

a bit more of a multi-level government simplification,

and I'm not talking about centralization, simplification is important.

We can do the, with the same tools, different things, and I think that is, it is.

This is the, the strengths of our European model and it, it's not the way it works in the US of course or in China or in other countries,

and I think this is the real strengths of the European model and the strengths of the tools that we've been building for several years now. A brief comment.

Please don't confuse cohesion policies with a charity, because sometimes I think there is a wrong idea of cohesion policies like a Red Cross,

like an economic ambulance intervening to support the poor people unable to develop.

I don't think that there is, let me say,

an anthropological or genetic superiority of some territories in Europe instead than other territories.

I think we have to create a condition to compete.

And this is the best way also to support the poorest territories because on the opposite,

the unique solution is to give some money in what in Italy we call in a perspective of existentialism.

There is not a translation of this word,

but it means I give you some money and then I don't take care of what you are doing with this money. It's no, it's not my problem.

We need to create a condition for better competitiveness, also to give to the poorest regions now the opportunities for better development,

and it happens with real policies supporting competitiveness, not giving money in a charity perspective.

And I think we cannot confuse this idea because cohesion is to create a condition for a better competitiveness for all,

not just to reduce disparities, but to eliminate disparities,

allowing the poorest to look like the best and not to the best to go.

Down in an average level for all because it is the tide, the death of the European competitiveness.

We have to support all to to become like the best, the better regions, the stronger region,

and not to reduce the condition of the stronger region like the medium average for Europe.

The time for our panel is running out.

I'm I would really like to bring in one more question at least from the audience,

which is very much connected to what we've been saying so far.

How can we use cohesion policy to actually give more capacity to local authorities to be able to make decisions that affect local people?

Minister, Vice Minister, maybe we can start with the minister.

We always need to be fair and be aware of the fact that after so many years of working with the European funds,

we need to know that also local communities have their own know-how and they have much more experience in local communities because they work on concrete projects.

Sometimes they have more experience than than the government.

And we don't need to have the situation to discuss every euro we use in Brussels and then in capital.

We need to give them freedom to decide by themselves.

Also, the initiatives such as LA are very well, working,

also in Slovenia we have action groups and they take decisions on the level of community.

And they are very much able to create great projects for local people.

As we just heard, also local communities differ among themselves.

In Slovenia, for example, we have city municipal cities,

and then on the other side we have a rural communities, but we shouldn't leave anyone behind.

Yes, I think that what we actually should do is to take In all the the the the local communities and the local authorities into every process that we carry on in creating national documents like national prosperity plans and whatsoever,

when choosing which side or which direction the country should go into the landing into some NRPPs,

landing projects, and so on.

And we also have to learn what you said, it's not charity, it's investment.

We invest that money and we should benefit from it, no matter how economically, in better education,

in better demography, in higher security level, but we have to benefit because that's the investment.

And once we realize that, we will see that the regions are more capable to prosper.

There's one more question from the audience which I would like to address.

Does the principle that cohesion and competitiveness are the two sides of the same coin apply on all levels,

starting from the EU and finishing with a small community, or are there limits to consider?

I think this is one of the dilemmas or the key points that we should possibly address. Who would like to take that?

I would have to say that I don't think that there is a contradiction at any level.

This said, life is made up of balance and trade-offs in virtually every single moment of our lives, right?

So you should think of this as reinforcing mechanisms,

but understanding the areas in which this work and the areas in which you should use other types of.

Narrative frameworks, but at the end of the day,

the notion of European Union competitiveness reflects the competitiveness of our member states,

our regions, our cities, and our companies.

So at the end of the day you have to think of this in terms of this continuum when you think about the concept of competitiveness and Think of this integrated with cohesion and with other types of instruments.

So does it apply on all levels, or should we Somehow approach it differently. Are you addressing me? Go ahead.

I believe it goes, in every level,

But as we said in the very beginning of the discussion that one of the main words about cohesion is cooperation.

So I think that in this period we need more. Local planning, but also regional planning.

I mean that the projects that are going to be implemented should create more added value and go beyond the municipalities,

they should be more regional with higher value. Anyone else wants to add to that? Mr. Going back to what I said earlier. The issue of competitivity yet again. Applies to all the levels. The idea is to do better. With fewer resources.

We are now going to face rarity of resources.

And that's why there is so much competition.

Around raw materials, strategic resources around the globe.

Considering That competitivity should apply to all levels is no longer shocking nowadays, provided that within the European project we take into account the territorial diversity,

the authorities' roles at the local and national level,

and that we take into account all the collective wins and gains that that gains that we can have.

The cohesion policy is not a solidarity policy. It used to be so. It used to be so. Let's not forget our politic history. It's not necessarily a solidarity policy. But it aims at territorial equity.

Regardless of where you are, whether you are in a rural area in the southern part of Europe on an island,

regardless of where you are,

there are constraints that make it impossible to reach the same economic performances.

And everyone needs to understand that we are not demanding financial.

Compensations or privileges, what we demand for is to have the capacities, the opportunities,

and the connections that will enable us to access the single market.

We also need to think of the outermost regions.

Investing in outermost regions,

overseas territories means reinforcing Europe in that very area.

This means reinforcing Europe across the globe and given. The current situations this is.

As important as building a highway between Brussels and Paris,

I think of our Friends from the Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean.

Our friends from the Canaries and the Azores in the Atlantic. This is just as important.

To invest in those areas which actually offer us thousands of square kilometers of resources that we are currently exploiting. With Marine resources as well.

And I think of the United States,

in particular with Donald Trump that are taking a very close look at those resources, all of that.

Is included in the union's competitiveness,

and again this applies to all EU territories. This is not solidarity. This is future investments.

Unfortunately we have to wrap it up here, but before we do,

let us look once again at Teresa's summary of today's afternoon. What has she drawn?

Now that's a very detailed picture, ladies and gentlemen, just as our conversation was.

I'm sure we can take more time to focus on those little details afterwards.

But now, dear friends, let me wrap it up.

We started with a Simple question can Europe actually become more competitive without leaving some of its regions behind?

And what we heard today, I mean, Europe clearly has many engines,

many regions actually driving us forward. Those different regions obviously need different solutions. Who should decide where the money goes? Well, that perhaps is Not exactly settled.

We heard about this bottom up approach versus top down.

Either you know the exact local peculiarities of the region and you address them on the spot,

or you look at the future challenges that Europe has. How do you find that balancing spot?

I think this is one of the key issues.

For the next MFF, and cohesion and competitiveness, well,

they are the two sides of the same coin.

Roughly, that is a universal approach, I think most of us agreed on the stage.

Thank you once again to the panelists, thank you for the executive Vice President.

To the audience as well for sending in your questions, and to everyone, following us virtually,

the European Week of Regions and Cities will,

continue until, well, tonight's big awards ceremony. Enjoy the rest of the program. Have a great evening.