you with the debate on the future of cohesion policy. I would kindly ask you to take your seats and to have some quiet in the hemicycle, please. I would like to welcome our guests of honour, Elisa Ferreira, the Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms and a good friend of the European Committee of Regions, Mercedes Caballero Fernandez, the Spanish Secretary General for European Funds, Elio de Rupo, our Member, Minister President of the Valuation Government and Member of the COR, and Humus Omarje, the Chair of the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament. Dear Commissioner Ferreira, as introduction to our debate today, I would like to begin by expressing my hope that you, Commissioner Ferreira, will not be the last European Commissioner for Cohesion Policy. This hope is more than a mere wish. It's a cautionary note. While we discuss the future of cohesion policy today, several Member States are actively considering new governance structures for the future of European funds, transitioning from a partnership model to a governance system modeled on the top-down approach seen in the Recovery and Resilience Fund. This is, in my view, a significant mistake. In fact, it would be a tragedy for Europe. Cohesion policy reforms and indeed does perform a rich history of promoting economic, social and territorial development, playing a crucial role in realizing key projects that benefit citizens, benefit communities, and small, medium-sized companies. It has a wealth of best practices to share and good governance principles to uphold, particularly the partnership principle that embodies multilevel governance. Its recent history demonstrates its ability to adapt and be flexible in the face of new needs and emergencies, such as during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. We understand that for cohesion policy to remain effective in the long run, it must evolve further to align with changing times. Point is that cohesion has already embraced a performance-oriented approach through the last reform, emphasizing green and digital investments. What more? Looking ahead, we shall not further seek only for simplification or a new shift in focus. Rather, what's needed is a genuine financial boost as a future financial framework based on the existing one would no longer surface. And a confirmation of the current governance, which is locally driven. Rethinking the resources of cohesion is not only needed because the policy has become a fertile tool designed to address numerous global challenges, but it is also due to the implementing and impending enlargement of the European Union. Indeed, we cannot afford a mere reallocation of resources to new cameras, as the statistical effect caused by a new enlargement on our region would not address alone the root causes of existing territorial disparities. So in conclusion, let's return to the fundamental aspect of our policy territoriality. To achieve this, we must indeed move beyond GDP to level the playing field. Now going back to the fundamental also means adhering to a cohesion policy built from the bottom up, resisting the temptation of a top-down approach that would be too distance from the citizens and the local authorities real needs to be efficient. If we want to tackle the emergencies, if we want to be able to respond to the real needs of citizens of cities and regions, then we need cohesion policy to be in the front line of European policies just as it is right now. Any change would create problems not only to citizen regions and to citizens' lives, but will help the anti-European voices and the anti-European sentiment rise again in the European Union's member states. So I'm really looking forward to hearing the views of our guests today, but also to hearing from you all as members of the Committee of Regions. Before starting and opening the floor, we will have a short video to show you. Cohesion policy reduces regional disparities by supporting concrete changes that impact and improve the life of citizens. Amid social, economic and environmental challenges, it is more important than ever to leave no one behind. From cities to villages, from mountains to islands, investments have to match territorial needs and evolving challenges. Cohesion is a fundamental European value that is crucial to ensure a sustainable future for all. Commissioner Ferreira, thank you for joining us today. You have the floor now for five minutes. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Dear Chair Tsitsikostas, Dear President Cordero, Dear Secretary General Mercedes Caballero, Dear Eleo de Rupio, Minister President of Valonia, and in anticipation of the Belgium Cohesion Policy, Chair Omaji, Honourable Members, my thanks to the Committee of Regions and especially to the two reporters that have addressed this question, how can we improve the performance of Cohesion Policy? Because if we want really to keep the policy going, we have got to be able to preserve what needs to be preserved and to update what needs to be updated. And this is the way to preserve it, together with making sure that the good examples of what we do with the policy are visible to everybody and that really we bring forward the will of European citizens and support of the European citizens to the policy. Looking at your report, yours is the first comprehensive institutional position on the future of Cohesion Policy. The direct involvement of the President of the Committee and the Chair of Cotter, that I didn't mention before, but is quite visible, Mr. Bock, reflects once again the remarkable commitment of this institution to Cohesion Policy. And this is in fact essential, highly appreciated. We appreciate too the report's very solid analysis of the challenges to Cohesion, as well as recommendations for the legal architecture of the policy, for governance and delivery, and for the policy's contribution to the various territorial transformations driven by innovation, climate, and demography. These recommendations that are expressed in your report are invaluable for our ongoing reflections, and we are examining them very, very closely. We agree that an European Union without Cohesion Policy would for sure be a fragmented one. We cannot be united if we have strong disparities that will only increase if nothing is done about them. And we agree also that the policy is essential, not just for reasons of solidarity, but for economic prosperity, for the strength and resilience of the single market, and for political stability. It is also the only tangible representation of the European project in some parts of our Union, and we just saw some of them in the film. Moreover, Cohesion, both across and within member states, is more needed than ever in times of external, very violent challenges and very violent shocks. This is why the principle of do-no-harmed Cohesion should be applied wherever relevant to all European and national policies and instruments. Strengthening Cohesion cannot be the work only of Cohesion Policy. We very much appreciate your strong and consistent support also on this point. While it is too early to set out in detail the future framework of the policy, as we cannot pre-empt what the future Commission will propose, there are some reflections and recommendations that gather and emerging the support. We agree with you that modernization is required to remain in step with the changing times, to boost effectiveness of the policy, to rise to emerging challenges, and to meet the expectations of our citizens. We also agree on recommendations for simplification while bearing in mind that we still need to ensure sound management and regular expenditure. Cohesion Policy should also increasingly be more performance-oriented and have clearly links to reforms, because investments alone are not enough to trigger sustainable and inclusive development. But however this is done, we must preserve key success features of the current policy, notably the partnership principle and the multilevel governance. We are also interested in your ideas for a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances. This would certainly alleviate the pressures of Cohesion Policy, which had in the recent past to intervene as a last resort during the crisis in the past years of COVID, of the refugees from Ukraine, of the rising energy prices. And of course we must retain the key focus of the policy on long-term transformation. But to be effective in promoting the very principle of Cohesion, as well as the future of the policy, we also need to reach out to wider audiences, as we often speak among ourselves preaching to the converted on the importance of the policy. We need, and this is my appeal to all of you, we need to go beyond this constituency and reach out more frequently to other decision makers, including the head of state and government level, our fellow citizens and opinion makers outside our bubble. In terms of next steps, the high-level group on the future of Cohesion Policy that I launched early in the year will meet two more times, and their final report prepared under their direct responsibilities expected by the end of February next year. In parallel, policy dialogues have been conducted in the member states, and we remain engaged in dialogue with all institutions and stakeholders, gathering evidence from studies, research and evaluations. We all draw these together in the ninth Cohesion Report, expected by the end of March, leading to a debate at the ninth Cohesion Forum in April. We again welcome very much your contributions in today's report, the report that is the core subject of this session, as well as in the coming months. And I look forward to our continued and close cooperation, bearing always in mind that Europe cannot function if we don't have a strong and performant Cohesion Policy that keeps us together, that keeps Europe united, and this requires a place-based multi-level policy in which Cohesion is also shared at the level of the so-called horizontal policies, be them at the level of member states or at the level of the European Union. Thank you for your support. Your support is essential. Thank you for the support of the European Parliament, as well, and of all the friends of Cohesion. And let's be open and speak out outside the bubble. This is my final message. Thank you very much once again. Thank you, Commissioner. I would like to give the floor now to Secretary General Caballero for five minutes. Here. Thank you. It is a pleasure for me to share once again this panel with my colleagues, the Commissioner Ferreira, the President, Elio de Rupo, and the President Janosomar Gi, who is bringing a special greeting. As you know, the future of Cohesion Policy has been the central axis of the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union during this semester in matter of Cohesion. This is how I put it in the manifesto, the Vice President, Fourth of the Government, the Minister of Public Affairs, Maria Jesús Montero, the last month of September in this same European Parliament. The informal and ministerial meeting that we celebrated in Murcia, which also attended the European Commission, was also focused on this important issue. And of course, from our presidency, we have wanted to count on the vision of all the institutions and consultative bodies of the Union, and we began with the Committee of Regions. I spoke to President Alves Cordero a few months ago to start preparing what would be the request of the Dictament that we carry out in June, and we have also requested, informed the Committee of the Economic and Social Committee. The Dictament of the Committee of Regions shows the high coincidence of visions that exist between institutions, central governments, regions and localities, about where the policy of Cohesion must advance beyond 2027. A policy of Cohesion that must continue to be that fundamental pillar of European integration and that has served from the beginning of this process as a verterritor of development and growth, guaranteeing the convergence of European regions and acting under the fundamental principle of preventing anyone from leaving behind. In effect, the project of the Dictament makes a difference in the need for the policy of Cohesion beyond 2027 continues to respond to what is its ultimate goal, as it is consecrated in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union, to achieve the harmonious development of regions. Thus, the policy of Cohesion must continue to serve as a tool of solidarity, but allow me, not only of solidarity, but of integration and European construction of a present and of a common future that allow combat the geography of discontent. It must be a policy that is visible and recognizable for citizens, regions and localities who have to feel it as their own. For these reasons, to combat this geography of discontent, it is fundamental that the policy of Cohesion responds to the needs of the people, of the citizens, of the regions, and for this the fundamental is to achieve a place-based approach and the general principle of one-size-that's-not-feet-all. This is the fundamental way. We must be able to adjust the programming that is carried out in matter of Cohesion, truly, to the needs of each region. And we must take into account in this sense that a region that is in the same category of regions, convergence, transition or more developed, does not have to start from the same original situation in many aspects, climatic, geopolitical, productive fabric, etc. And that, therefore, it can, that its path to convergence, even being in the same section relative to per capita income, does not have to be the same. In this sense, during the Spanish presidency, we have wanted to advance, proposing that in the future, different indicators are taken into account, different elements that, from data analysis, allow us to make a better diagnosis of where we are going and where we are going, preserving, of course, the respect for the political objectives that, among all, we have marked and we are going to continue to mark. Another fundamental element that we have discussed and that also references the report on the need to reduce regulatory costs. The bureaucratic charges in question when superimposing systems are on excessive occasions. Therefore, a replacement again, about how to homogenize procedures where, without losing control of any of the ways, but we manage to reduce regulatory costs, is something fundamental. Control is not a thing in itself, it is an instrument to guarantee an adequate efficiency in the designation of resources. But the question policy also has to be able, it has done so, thanks to the intervention of all the institutions of the union in the past, it has to be able to give response to the different events of disruptive character that unfortunately are going to continue to be produced. The pandemic was produced, then a war was produced and it is easy that in the future, for example, the effects of climate change end up affecting more some areas than others. Therefore, we can conclude by saying that the question policy is in a passionate moment, with great opportunities that give it the learning lessons of its own development and its management. As for management, another basic element to take into account and put in value is the shared management, which has allowed us to create some governance institutions between countries, between regions, between local entities and of course with the European Commission and with the rest of the institutions that we believe it is necessary to preserve. All the institutions of the union, the legislators and national managers, regional and local, here represented, we are convinced of the importance of adopting the policy of cohesion of an efficiency and a renewed force. This proves precisely the dictation of the Committee of Regions here presented. Therefore, I am sure that among all, we will be able to develop the instruments that allow us to sit at the base of the policy of cohesion of tomorrow to continue to build a Europe of all and all where we do not leave anyone behind. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I would like to give the floor now to Minister President Di Rupo for five minutes. Thank you, Mr President. I'm speaking in my language. The future of the policy of cohesion after 2027 will be at the heart of the priorities of the Belgian President. The Belgian President will highlight the importance of the policy of cohesion, importance as an essential instrument of long-term investment. We often say this in this stage to strengthen the economic, social, territorial interests of the European Union, as we have seen on the video. It is also important as an instrument of response to the challenges of society, but at the most close level of citizens and companies. As you know, the policy of cohesion is a sign of the European construction and this sign of the European construction that we need more than ever in the period that we know. The works of the Belgian President will be inscribed in the pursuit of initial reflections under the previous Presidents. I would like to salute the remarkable work carried out by the Spanish President. Thank you, Mr President. I also salute the life that will be adopted in a few minutes by our European Committee on the future of cohesion post-2027. This view is a very important element, as we just said, in the reflection that we will bring together in order to strengthen the policy of cohesion. For my part, it seems to me that we should respond quickly to some fundamental questions. Many European decision-makers try to create a more or less important part of the future budget of cohesion policy. And this desire to push in the budget of cohesion for other policies is great. It is even greater that the United States seems to not want to increase the global budget of the Union, nor will it allow the Union to be financed by own receipts. However, the needs of the Union are huge and many. We know that. Moreover, voices are also being heard to assimilate the policy of cohesion with ease for repression and resilience. In these realities, several questions can be asked. How to convince that a long-term structural investment policy cannot be confused with a policy of reliance set up after a cataclysm or a pandemic? How to simplify the governance of structural funds to be more efficient? Moreover, we all know that the needs of a region are not completely identical to the needs of other regions. Therefore, how to guarantee a better understanding of the specificities of each region in the definition of cohesion policies led to each specific territory? I will give an answer to this question outside of the publication of a group of specialists at a high level on the future of the policy of cohesion presided over by Prof. Andrés Rodriguez Posé. In consultation with the Secretary-General, if she accepts it, I will go to the Belgian President to ask a series of questions to facilitate the debate. My dear colleagues, in the course of the Belgian President, the Commission will publish its ninth cohesion report. I understood that there will be a forum in April. This will be another important element in the concept of cohesion policy after 2027. The objective of the Belgian President is the adoption of this conclusion of the Council. On the ninth report during the General Cohesion of 18 June 2024, before that, we will have an exchange of views at the ministerial level in February, during the informal meeting of ministers in charge of politics and cohesion, meeting at which the Committee of the Regions of the President will be associated by your intermediary. Finally, the Belgian President also organizes the 10th summit of cities and regions with the European Committee of the Regions. This summit will be held on 18 and 19 March next. This summit will be the occasion of new exchanges on the future of politics and cohesion in 2027. Of course, my dear colleagues, you are all very cordially invited. Thank you very much. Mr. Romargé, you have the floor for five minutes, please. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen, in your title and quality, allow me to share with you some messages. First of all, I would like to tell you how important the commitment of the Committee of the Regions is and congratulate the co-reporters Emil Bocque and Vasco Cordero for the contribution they put in the debate. And this obviously reinforces the European Parliament in the convergent objectives that we have posed with the Committee of the Regions. I would like to tell you that cohesion is, of course, an exigence but cohesion is first and foremost a permanent fight, a permanent political fight. And I want to tell you my concern when we see ourselves bounce back all over Europe from nationalism, when we see ourselves all over Europe grow over and over discussions that want to separate the member states of the European Union between net contributors on one side and the beneficiaries of the cohesion policy on the other. And more this state of mind will grow and more the risks of the cohesion policy will grow with it. Because our policy, you know, is a policy first and foremost founded on solidarity. And that's why the European scrutinism is an important scrutinism because it will also allow to reaffirm the belief in a certain number of fundamental principles that govern the whole of European politics. The second element that I want to put in the debate in addition to all that has already been said and on which I will not come back because I share all that has been said is that in our reflections on the future of cohesion we must also think of the future enlargement that will come as well as the questions related to the reconstruction of Ukraine and tomorrow the vision of Ukraine without doubt the European Union. It is obvious that new countries that will adhere to the European Union will need a cohesion policy but a cohesion policy which is not a budgetary policy but a very powerful cohesion policy. But we must also be lucid on these future enlargements that will come by mechanical effects to boost a certain number of current balance and that's why in the works that are committed on the future of cohesion policy after 2027 we must integrate this because many countries or regions that are today objective 1 will pass in other categories and the regions in transition also risk passing in other categories. So let's keep this in mind. Finally, to finish as I said before, the Committee of the Regions I really think we must think a real climate crisis a crisis on adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the regulations on cohesion policy because natural disasters and impacts of climate change will come to boost all that we know currently and come to boost all regional development plans through the whole European Union. You can obviously count on the full commitment of the European Parliament we are obviously waiting for the results of the work of expert groups but the future of cohesion policy will be what the co-legislators will decide to know the European Council and the European Parliament we have brought the responsibility of the regulations that are currently assumed by the regions of Europe. We will draw all the consequences of what has worked of what has not worked of the developments that should be done and we will also propose a proposal coming from the European Parliament on the reform of this policy that is necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, President Marge. I would like to give the floor now to the rapporteur, President Cordero, for three minutes. I would like to thank the Council that is present, that is close and a special greeting to our friend, Juno Somargi, for his presence here today with us. Some brief references about this aspect to continue to serve the populations the cohesion policy cannot continue to be exactly as it is. Today we present a proposal to appear, a clear proposal to renew this policy in order to become more solid and more focused to make new challenges. There are many voices of skepticism in relation to the cohesion policy. To all of them we say that the union cannot survive without this policy. The reform of the cohesion focused on the citizens in the previsibility at the beginning of the partnership and simplification the cohesion policy will be able to reinforce the structural and transformative policy in the long term. Let me now go through three or four main ideas of this opinion. First, we need to find a new balance between the needs for long term investments on one hand and the capacity of cohesion policy funding to be agile and responsive to unforeseen events on the other hand. We need regulatory stability from the outset to guarantee fast and effective delivery of the funds. That's what we call flexibility with predictability. The very core principles on which cohesion is built upon shared management multi-level governance partnership principle are more relevant than ever. That's why we propose to reinforce the code of conduct on partnership by creating an enable condition on the partnership principle. Third, to counter those who claim that cohesion policy funding is slow, inefficient or cumbersome, we need to build a new culture of trust and partnership between the EU and our regions and cities based on three pillars. Accountability, transparency, participation of all stakeholders. That's why we propose the commission to launch a wine range assessment of simplification measures. Fourth, we need to address what some observers have coined coordination failure between cohesion policy and the RRF. We cannot afford having cohesion policy competing or overlapping against other EU investments and instruments, I mean in the future. So we also propose a single strategic framework to define the scope and goal of each fund under what we call European partnership pact. Let me conclude by thanking my rapporteur, Francesco Molina. Thank for everybody for helping us in this opinion and let me express my gratitude to my co-reporter, Emil Bok. We have we had and we have a strong and very well coordinated partnership, not only in this opinion, but I think it's very clear that the fact we are both in with flu at the same time before you demonstrates how coordinated we are presenting this opinion. I would like to say that the fundamental role of cohesion policy in supporting these territories is to make its structural and permanent characteristics and to defend that the specific challenges inherent to the intra-prypheric regions must also be especially called to the public to give particular attention to the issues of territorial accessibility, and also to the particular cohesion. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. I would like to give the floor now to the co-reporter, Mr. Bok, who also has three minutes to intervene. The future of the European Union depends on the future of cohesion policy. Because this cohesion policy is the lipstick that keeps the European Union united. The discussion today answers the question what kind of European Union do we want in the future? A European Union in which the inequalities, the regional discrepancies are or a much more cohesive European Union with a minimum standard of quality of life in each corner of the European Union. It is true. The United States and some States of Asia have greater economic growth. But, than the European Union, but the level of inequalities is much, much greater. And we have a level of inequalities in the European Union, but not comparable to what exists in other parts of the world. Therefore, if we want to evolve on a political cohesion before all, we need a strong territorial, economic and social cohesion. European democracy cannot be consolidated in Syria. It can be consolidated only where there is prosperity, not where we have very rich and very, very rich people and where we have a very strong middle class and consolidated with this prosperity. Now, from the cohesion policy we must remember one aspect. We do not have in Europe only net contributors and net beneficiaries. We have net winners in the European Union. Europe is the great winner of the cohesion. Now I switch to English. What is our vision for the future of cohesion policy? And I will ask you using three letter R. Reinvention of cohesion policy, replacing the cohesion policy or reinforcing the cohesion policy. Reinvention? No. We need to keep the cohesion policy and long-term investment policy a structural reform of our Europe. Replacing and especially replacing with another instrument or extending the recovery and resilient facility. No. We should learn from recovery and resilient facility but not replacing the cohesion policy with a mechanism or recovery and resilient facility. This is the very elephant in the room. If we want to destroy the cohesion policy then extend the RF to the cohesion policy. We have to pay attention for that. The RF is top-down mechanism. Cohesion policy is bottom-up. RF is an emergency instrument. Cohesion policy is a long-term investment of the European Union. So we have to be very, very careful about this future debate about the future of cohesion policy. Now reinforcing, of course we must keep what must be kept. We must avoid what must be avoided and modernize what must be modernized. So very quick. What must be kept? A cohesion policy for all regions. Multilevel governments, place-based approach, partition principle and the total cohesion policy budget after 2027 should be at least equivalent to the period 2021-2027. What must be avoided? The fragmentation of cohesion policy, the transformation of cohesion policy in the cash machine or in a deposit of money for other emergencies in the European Union. We need flexibility and cohesion but inside of cohesion funds not outside of the cohesion funds. And now in the end please allow me to thank you to the president Cordero for his excellent support and as a president he took the opportunity to work together for this important topic for our European Committee of the Regions and last but not least to thank you to my expert Kali Hinsia, professor of political science and public administration in Babesburg University and well-known recognized expert in the field. And thank you to all of you our shadow reporters for your support and last but not least to the president allow me to be one minutes more. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I would like to open the floor now and give the floor for two minutes to Olga Geblevic from the EPP group. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all I would like to thanks to our friends to Madame Commissioner to chair and to Secretary General and Prime Minister to being real and true defender of the cohesion policy. I would like to also congratulate my friends co-reporters who have done drafting the so important opinion. It is not only voice from the EPP but it is voice from my region from West Pomerania region in Poland that importance of the cohesion policy goes far beyond its financial support because cohesion policy is true expression of European way of life and our values such as partnership, solidarity, unity and equality because please believe me 20 years ago in Poland in my region people didn't really believe that common Europe means equal chances we had the highest employment rate something like 30% we had a huge large amount of poverty polluted rivers and so on and right now we managed to rebuild our local economy we are one of the most cleanest and greenest regions in Poland producing the biggest amount of green energy in Poland and it was possible because European money needed to be merged with creativity and activity of our people and then supported by the very hard work of our people on the ground we are writing this sex story and defending cohesion policy I think that we always need to keep it in mind that it is not only money it is about the motivation people about the hard work of our people about appreciation of this hard work and my second message is that cohesion policy need to be implemented by regional policies not one regional European policy but 242 regional policies because we cannot drafting the next regulations regarding to the next MFF we cannot put every region in the same box because even in Poland when we have 16 of regions we are very very diverse and we need to have wise cohesion and why cohesion means comprehensive cohesion thank you very much Mr President I would like to give the floor to Mr President thank you Mr President and I agree on everything which was said by Mr Geblevich but I want to add a few things and finish if you may Dear friends cohesion policy is EU and so it is also in the future through this we decide what kind of Europe we want to build cohesion policy will be long-term but at the same time cohesion policy is local regional implementation remember the traditions of the monies cohesion policy is common European goals decisions and choices have to be made where people are, where action happens cohesion policy is a person's policy good friends cohesion policy means new European sustainable growth cohesion policy is also a report from a different work this view can be seen from a different point of view it was made more clear from the local foundations so that we can know the areas that are in development or the areas of cohesion we do not need we need cohesion and cohesion in these areas the areas of cohesion are many different the development of funding will be enough once so funding cohesion is successful so we need easier and more unique so EU level so cohesion cohesion policy is a long-term work and it cannot work in the face of crisis because we also need new innovations for example the development of cohesion is a good example for everyone cohesion friends it is important to take care that every part of Europe can trust the future to change the role of people and then I remember that there is no success and cohesion policy is also important thank you I would like to give the floor now to Isabel Boutinot from the social service thank you all you all said that cohesion policy is first of all a partnership of development around a territorial strategy and long-term investment preparing for the future and from this point of view we rely on instant photos that our economists provide with their macro vision of competitiveness judged by the GDP to these photos we prefer films, especially when they are made by geographers that have in mind the added value of territorial cooperation this is why our group keeps on warning us about the competition that cohesion policy of the financial tools disconnected from local realities as it has been the ease to resume it only a decentralized management of cohesion funds allows to respond to the economic, social and environmental specific because the challenge is to build solutions adapted to the local context whether to preserve the employment or to operate the necessary energy or ecological transitions in an intelligent and fair way but cohesion policy should be simplified in order to raise the challenges of territorial development in particular we have to avoid the fragmentation of funds different which demands an administrative expertise to be multiplied cohesion policy should also make the object of more media to be made more visible and it is therefore about putting the accent on its social dimension and solidarity while inequalities and the feeling that it generates makes the trust in democratic institutions finally we support the increase of funds aimed at territorial cooperation in particular and the place where they are regularly invented innovative public policies which make the legal and administrative obstacles fall linked to the absence of concordance between the national views of the member states it is also a nice demonstration of the success of cohesion policy and my region, the new Aquitaine can be seen with our region Spanish-Frontal Thank you Thank you very much Madame Baudino I would like to give the floor now to President Lombards Mr. President we find this afternoon here friends friends of cohesion we are convinced that cohesion policy has contributed considerably to European development and we are even more convinced that we will need a cohesion for us cohesion constitutes a constitutive element of the European Union of the European Union the European Union that we territorial collectivities are called to transfer on the field where people live where they finally decide in the head, in the stomach and in the heart of the European if the European policy has a real value added for them but when we are friends sometimes we forget that we have only friends in the states as well as in the European states by the way everyone does not part of cohesion friends there are those who find that it is superfluous useless and there are those who love cohesion as a variable just when there is a hole in the European budget it is with those that we have to discuss and I have a little feeling that this discussion will take us very far until the definition of the future MFF and it looks like a game of chess and gentlemen reporters you have done for this to us to play step by step so that the final objective is the one we want often we consider that the policy of cohesion is not a story of money it is more than that but it is also that and it is less the distribution of the means than the volume of the means how do we want to make a real political cohesion if the European means only 1% of the European GDP it is ridiculous how do we really want to make a policy of investment if the convergence rules and the budgetary rules of the European Union often prevent investment against all this we also have to fight and we have to make a lot of effort so that all regions continue to play effective role in the policy of cohesion and tomorrow will be a new Europe where cohesion plays an essential role Thank you very much President Lambert I would like to give the floor to Mirja Vercapera from the Renew Europe Group I would like to thank the European Union for its support and especially the staff who are supporting the areas and the community the long-term policy of cohesion and the purpose of cohesion is to address different questions and questions which are present in Europe for example, the long-term policy of cohesion or socio-economic position the policy of cohesion is to address the development of the areas of cohesion is known the cohesion policy should continue in its own area the cohesion policy of the European Union can improve the cohesion of the areas of cohesion has been developed from digitalization and different energy fields for local people has been possible to develop innovative fields of research has been added the cohesion of the areas of cohesion of the areas of cohesion of the areas of cohesion of the areas of cohesion has not been developed and the cohesion is at this moment the owners and companies believe in investing their own resources and our value increases the whole time the European Union should keep in mind that the cohesion policy is long-term and sustainable and the main focus is to remain the cohesion needs additional structure if the crisis poses its consequences the situation needs a second financial crisis for example the corona pandemic or the disaster of nature should be treated as a hurry financial instrument not a traditional We are waiting for the future cohesion policy to be able to respond to the movement of greenery, digitalisation and employment opportunities. The good relations between the good and the bad, the use of natural resources and the Thank you. Thank you. I would like to give the floor now to Jura Broba from the ACR group. Dear Madam Commissioner, dear Mr. President, dear honoured colleagues, the discussions on the future of the cohesion policy are getting momentum and I think it's the right time for regions and cities to speak up now. The cohesion policy belongs to our territories and to our citizens. We know the challenges our citizens are facing on the ground and we are able to propose the measures to address them. Therefore, it is crucial to proactively shape the debates on the future design of this most important EU investment policy already at this very early stage right now. I want to express my gratitude to the co-reporters for the tremendous work you have undertaken over the past few months in preparing this opinion. As a shadow rapporteur, I have closely followed the entire process and I would like to share a few personal remarks with you. Opinions on the future of the cohesion policy have historically held a prominent position among the documents produced by our institution and rightly so. The document is well-balanced, addressing all critical aspects of the cohesion policy and let me emphasize five key points of the opinion. One, in light of new drivers of inequalities, the upcoming period presents opportunity to redefine how we perceive disparities among regions. It is my strong conviction that in this regard we must move beyond merely considering the GDP mantra. Second, we call for enhanced application of the integrated territorial investments to strengthen the place-based approach. Three, cohesion policy should be accessible to all EU regions while we uphold the principles of partnership and multi-level governance. Four, a higher focus of the European territorial cooperation is essential. And five, the post-2027 cohesion policy should incorporate a robust urban and metropolitan dimension. In collaboration with my colleagues from Capital Cities and Regions Network, we have prepared also a position paper on this issue. I am pleased that through this opinion we can send a powerful political message regarding our vision for the cohesion policy. The adoption of the opinion is just the start. However, I am confident that the dedication of the reporters will help convey this message to the key European institutions and succeed. Cohesion is the bloodline of our regions and as Mr Lambert put it, it's the DNA and I completely agree with that. Europe needs to see success stories and cohesion policy shows us the most tangible success stories that people see and present the best European Union in their eyes. I call myself a matured libertarian and although I like small government I do see the inevitability of the cohesion policy. Thank you very much Mr Drobach. Mr Macarthur please, do you have the floor? The needs for cohesion and policy are evolving, especially with the demands of the green and digital transition. Automation will have an impact across regions. It will create new jobs in a region, but benefits will not be distributed equally. Regional labour markets could be seriously impacted. And we have new challenges. There are new forms of disparities that can arise to social tension if they remain unaddressed. And these challenges can go beyond borders, cannot be tacked by member states alone, but in partnership with the regions. And while inside this room we are all in agreement, and I agree with you, Madam Commissioner, I think it's outside this room that work needs to be done, and we need to do more to defend the key principles that our two distinguished rapporteurs are brilliantly included in the opinion. But the magnitude of the challenges are huge and needs adequate budget, so we need no more budget transfer. And how many times does the COR have to articulate on the importance of the partnership principle? The proliferation of instruments and centrally managed instruments are not friends of local democracy. We need to do more so that there's greater cooperation with European Parliament committees, and that day will grow stronger. We need to do more to work proactively, as we're doing with the Spanish and the future presidents, so that we can keep cohesion and policy in focus. We need to do more with national governments. We need to do more by building allies and networks within the cohesion alliance. In essence, we need to do more as the committee of the regions. My sincere thanks to the two distinguished rapporteurs and get well soon. Thank you very much. Una Power from the Greens. You have the floor. Thank you. And first of all, on behalf of the Greens, I'd like to thank the rapporteurs for their constructive and forward-looking work on this report. It is very welcome. And thank you as well to the panellists for an engaging and insightful discussion. Cohesion policy is, as we know, an incredibly important investment tool to reduce social, territorial, and economic disparities. But it is also a huge asset in our arsenal when it comes to combating climate change and environmental degradation. For the post-27 cohesion policy, we need to aim for half of the budget to not only contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation, but also to halting biodiversity loss, building better water management, and implementing a circular economy. Furthermore, no cohesion funding should be used in a way that is counter to our climate and environmental goals. New climate adaptation earmarking within the cohesion policy would be particularly important, allowing regions to take action to tackle challenges related to climate change and to build up their resilience and preparedness regarding environmental issues and disasters. Finally, as has already been mentioned, GDP alone is not an adequate metric by which to measure the state of health of European regions. A European Policy Centre study for the Reggie Committee confirmed that there is a widening economic, social, and territorial divide within our Union. Better performing economies and positive growth rates do not necessarily translate into better services or better quality of life for our citizens. We must advocate for a more holistic approach that considers a spectrum of indicators to provide a comprehensive understanding of regional wellbeing and to guide more effective policy interventions. Thank you again to the rapporteurs for their work on this. Thank you very much, Ms. Green. I would like to give the floor now to Elisa Ferreira, our commissioner for her reaction. Thank you very much, and thank you for all the comments that were made. I will not react to all of them. I would just like to underline. But we took note of everything that the different members have been saying. And of course, we are listening and studying not only the texts and contributions that come from the high-level group, but from all the different member states, all the different think tanks across Europe, and particularly, as Mr. Homagy mentioned, we know that the future of cohesion policy has got to make a statement on lessons learned from the past on what is our legacy. But it is up to the next commission, to the parliament and to the council to decide what kind of policy will be the one that will be prevailing. What I would like to underline is that more and more we see the recognition of the value of the policy from external entities, independent entities. And, namely, I like very much to quote the World Bank when they say that Europe has a convergence machine, whereas others classify the cohesion policy as the glue that keeps Europe together. And if you look at the global trends that we are faced with, we see how the demography is changing the shape of Europe. Our estimates are that in 2050 there will be less than 35 million active population inside Europe. This is a big country that will disappear naturally. So this calls for also an emergency action in order to tackle this emoji of people that are qualified and they cannot leave and find a proper job in the place where they were born or where well they would like to work. Also, we have connected with our work on rural areas. We have established a lot of information that I call you to include in your analysis, in fact, on the different situations that different regions face. So we have the global demographic trend. We have the climate emergency, and I'd like to underline that, in fact, the biggest public investment in environment projects as well as in digital comes exactly from cohesion policy because we have made sure that there is this kind of concern of attention in relation to the future of Europe and to the future of our regions. Of course, we would love and we are hoping that also the proposals on step on the capacity to attract future-oriented high-level industries can really also benefit the different regions and different countries of Europe. Let's see what the Council and the European Parliament decide finally on this issue. So there are lots of trends, lots of shocks. I would like also to share with you that from our past initiatives that we managed to do with the strong support of the Parliament and of the Committee of Regents and Council with the support of reshifting or allowing to shift cohesion funding to address the emergency situations of COVID or of the accommodation of refugees from Ukraine with these emergency funds helped us to have a different situation in relation of 2021 when compared to the previous crisis of 2011 and 2012. What I mean with this is that after this crisis of 2010, 2011, 2012, when regions bounced back, they bounced back, particularly those that were stronger, the weakest one they lagged behind. In the present case in 2021, all the regions, the weakest and the strongest, they had bounced back in 2021 and they had already the GDP per capita on average that they had before the pandemic. So this shows that also we need to accommodate in cohesion policy these elements that will help us to react. But the purpose is not in question. The central purpose of the policy is long-term convergence. And also here, if you look at the countries that joined the European Union in the recent enlargements, they had a GDP per capita on average lower than 50%. I just came from Romania. Romania in the year 2000 had a GDP per capita compared with the average of Europe of 27%. Today, Romania has 77% of GDP per capita. And on average, these countries have reached a level that is over 75%. So if you need evidence of the role of cohesion policy, you have lots of examples. The crucial thing is that particularly now in a campaign period, that in fact when citizens ask questions about Europe, that in fact we make in concrete, we give visibility to what cohesion policy has changed. And I would like to underline a sentence in the report that is under appreciation now. And this is let's analyze what is the cost of no cohesion. So if cohesion policy was not there, how would life of people change or have changed? This is something that I value very much as a principle to understand how important cohesion is in the sense of keeping Europe together. It is the glue that keeps Europe together. Of course, all your recommendations are listened to. And in particular, I'd like to reinforce this place-based approach. This need to have the partnership to involve the local entities, to have a bottom-up approach, to have a multi-level recognition and to make sure that cohesion is not an issue to be done by cohesion policy, but it is at the core of our democratic process at the level of the European Union, but also at the level of each member state. Without cohesion, Europe is fragmented and the fragmented Europe is not a strong Europe. So thank you very much for your support. And I finalized with my appeal, let's make cohesion policy visible to our citizens. Let's make cohesion policy understandable by those that are not experts or directly engaged into the policy. Thank you so much for your work. I cannot follow up here because I have another commitment. But anyway, colleagues are following and we'll take note of all your contributions. Thank you so so much. Thank you very much, Commissioner Ferreira. It is a pleasure always to work with you. We know very well here in the Committee of Regions and I personally know that very well as well that you are a good friend, supporter and ally of the European Committee of Regions and of course of cohesion policy. And we thank you for that.


Good morning, everyone. I think we'll get started and really very honored to be in this distinguished setting. I'm Sandy Close, the director of New America Media, and we've partnered with members of the KidsWell Collaborative, which is here today, and people will introduce themselves very quickly. This is a forum that was totally inspired by Juan Flores, a longtime friend and colleague, but it is part of a larger effort sponsored by Atlantic Philanthropies Foundation in New York that is very committed to expanding healthcare access for children and youth, and has a particular concern with children and youth in Texas, in Florida, in Mississippi, in states where Medicaid has not been expanded. So I'm delighted that we have several colleagues from the Atlantic Philanthropies KidsWell project here. We are doing these seminars to also bring our ethnic and community-based partners together, and we will be joined by several more. We had a very good RSVP for today's event, and we also have the wonderful opportunity of a webcast that we will be able to project today's panel to a much wider audience through New America Media's ethnic media syndicate, through our website, through the various folks who are here today. So I'm going to turn it over to our official host and MC Juan Flores, but just to say thank you so much for letting us come and learn from all of you today. Good morning. I'm Juan Flores, and I'm the Executive Director for La Fe Policy Research and Education Center. I want to thank everybody for joining us today to have this conversation on the future of children of color in Texas. I want to give a special thanks to New America Media, Sandy Close for choosing San Antonio to do the media briefing. It's a first for San Antonio, quite frankly. Secondly, I certainly want to thank Dean Rogelio Sainz from the College of Public Policy, and I also want to thank Roger for the work he put. Roger Enriquez who's the Director for the Policy Study Center. And of course I want to give a thanks, shout out to NowCast who is willing to video and record today's media briefing and discussion. Our special thanks go out to our presenters, you know, their expertise to sharing it with us, to giving us their perspective and their long years of experience with some of the issues that we're going to touch on today. And so I really, really appreciate their time and effort. And, you know, I want to kind of make a brief presentation just for a few minutes, and with regard to the fact that the demographic changes and issues presented today have major implications for the biennestad and well-being of our children and the economic prosperity of our state. For many of us, the word biennestad has the implied meaning of social justice in opportunities to achieve equality education, occupational and economic mobility, good health, civic involvement, and a safe living environment. As you know, children of color comprise the majority of the state child population, which is being led by the Latino explosive growth. Furthermore, it's important to note that the majority of state tax revenues from Texas will come from people of color, which 43% will be from Latinos. Latinos will comprise over 42% of the state's aggregate household incomes. The incidence and prevalence rates of disease and chronic health problems, unfortunately, are increasingly shifting to African-Americans and Latinos, thereby increasing their health resource needs. The purchasing power of Texas people of color is growing quickly. For Latinos, it is expected to increase by 50% from 175 billion in 2009 to 263 billion by 2016. If Texas is to achieve and maintain a progressive and compassionate posture, it must pay serious attention to the conditions under which children of color live. They are the future power Texas must reckon with. Therefore, it must pay attention now to the social and economic implications of their success at school or lack thereof, their developing health status, which is directly related to their school performance, their projected growth and purchasing power that will contribute in great measure to the state's economy, to the growing numbers that will begin voting, become civically engaged, and increasing their voting block strength. While we will not present all the issues impacting children of color, we will speak to priority education and health issues that have statewide legislative policy implications and impact. It seems to us that effective child development is fostered by a loving and nourishing family environment, a financially stable and unstressed home, a good physical and mental health, and early education opportunities as major prerequisites. The expected results is entering adult health with social capital assets evident by development of a strong family and community networks, achieving equality education and good health that are central to self-sufficiency and being a productive citizen of our society. If you view it as a puzzle, these requisites represent critical pieces required to achieve effective child development. Unfortunately for too many children of color, the puzzle has been incomplete and the requisite pieces are either missing or they're broken. The result that most of us in this room know about has been entering adulthood with an inadequate education, weak job skills, living in poverty, poor health, high teen pregnancy, incarceration, and so forth. It's not, you know, unfortunately, you know, a lot of children are being lives, our lives are being lost, families are being marginalized, and the economy of our state is also being diminished. While cities, nonprofits, faith and businesses have increasingly ventured into local partnerships to help address some of these pressing problems, like San Antonio being one with early child education recently. Unfortunately, they are not supported by state policymakers who demonstrate minimal, minimal statewide investments in building stronger human capital for the future. According to the 2011 Texas on the Brink, the state is not making such human capital investments. The reports succinctly illustrate the state's national poor rankings across selection of legislative performance indicators relating to education, employment and wages, health, voter inequality are all well documented. You can read reports from Texas organizations such as the Center for Public Policy Priorities, Texas Care for Children, and other present who present similar results that further perpetuate inequalities. Latinos, African Americans, and low income populations have experienced firsthand the state's minimal approach to public policy making that often obstruct ideas and change to equitable opportunities for all citizens of our state. The current far right political and policy environment raises major concerns about the potential impact on our families being established and our influence to help direct the future of Texas. Too often, the policy environments reflect biased ideology and political rhetoric, which has little to do with objective or equitable policy solutions that improve education, healthcare and economic development and that truly, I mean truly are for all Texans and so we like to say. Instead, we have a regressive tax system taking disproportionately more dollars from the poor as opposed to a fair progressive tax system. This contributions, this contributes I should say to our inadequate state revenue collection structure which is insufficient and most people know it, to meet basic infrastructure needs such as roads and water, let alone meet current and future revenue investments in education, workforce with a living wage, healthcare and so forth. These inequities have contributed to the numerous legal actions in education, mental health, juvenile justice, family planning against the state for the discriminatory impacts resulting from these policies particularly against the poor and people of color. For decades, Latinos and African Americans have fought and continue to fight against unequal education, low wages, healthcare inequities, immigrant bashing and other economic mobility barriers. Specific to Latinos, the history and future of Texas is immersed with the Tejano presence and contributions. Improvements in the quality of life of Latinos would not have occurred without the significant labor movements of the 1920s. The post-war war II Mescan American civic organizing and advocacy of the 40s and 50s, the civil rights Chicano engagement of the 60s and 70s. Since the 1980s African Americans and Latinos and other progressive advocates, organizations and network allies have been involved in major legislative and legal battles particularly in education, legislative representation, voter suppression, health and immigration issues. Unfortunately, they're still with us today. Comprehensive education and healthcare access legislative solutions are vitally needed. While good data and policy research are critically important, all of us in this room, we know and we must demand action and develop the power and influence for that to happen. Good policymaking should strengthen communities, families and individuals through investments that in turn contribute to a strong economy and citizens. For the future of children of color, we have much work to do as the data and the policy perspectives will be reflected this morning by the expertise and the committed individuals that we have presenting. With that, if you will, I'd like to begin with Dr. Sainz, who will be followed by Kuka as well, us lovingly referred to her from IDRA, followed by David Hinojosa, the regional council from Maldave, and Non-Docobart, the deputy director for the Center for Public Policy Priorities. Again, we would like very much for questions and discussion to take hold until the completion of their presentation.


We turn now to the second of the foundational doctrines in copyright law, the idea expression distinction. Every system of copyright law contains some version of this distinction. In U.S. law, its statutory locus is Section 102B of the Copyright Act, which provides, quote, in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, end quote. Some scholars, such as Professor Pam Samuelson, argue that this provision reaches more broadly than the idea expression distinction, but I'll put that controversy aside for the time being. In the Eldred case, which we'll consider in detail in a subsequent lecture, the United States Supreme Court suggested that the idea expression distinction is necessary in order to reconcile copyright law with the principle of freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lots of other examples of this distinction can be found in the law of other countries. So what exactly is this famous fundamental distinction? It's easy to state, but surprisingly hard to apply. The key concepts are clear enough. Neither ideas nor facts are protected by copyright law, only the way in which an author expresses ideas or facts is protected. Simple enough. Unfortunately, the key terms, idea, fact, expression, are all ambiguous and contested. To figure out what they mean, you need to examine some applications of the principles. Here's a general guideline. When interpreting and applying the idea expression distinction, try to avoid attributing to those terms their ordinary meanings. Think of them rather as terms of art. Shorthand references to loose clusters of things that, for policy reasons, the law includes in or excludes from copyright. With that principle in mind, let's consider some of the context in which the idea expression distinction arises. The first such context is known as the merger doctrine. Suppose there's only one set of words that accurately conveys particular idea. In such a situation, the principle that ideas are unprotected and the principle that expression is protected clash, which prevails. The principle that ideas are unprotected. So anyone is free to use that uniquely appropriate set of words with impunity. Such situations arise more often than you might think, particularly in the context of computer software. But we'll wait to take up those illustrations until lecture number three, when we consider the various kinds of works the copyright covers. The second context is known as the Senza fair doctrine. The 1978 case of Alexander v. Haley provides a good illustration. The basic facts of that case were as follows. Prior to the publication of Alex Haley's book, Roots, the plaintiff wrote a similar book about the history of her own family during slavery and about her own gradual awakening to the importance of her heritage. When Roots was published and became famous, the plaintiff brought a copyright infringement suit against Haley. In support of her claim, the plaintiff provided a long list of parallels between her book and Roots, arguing that Haley had copied heavily from her. The court eventually ruled that, despite the large number of similar scenes, Haley had not engaged in copyright infringement. One of the grounds on which the court rejected the plaintiff's assertions is that they involve so-called Senza fair. Here's the language in which the court expresses this judgment. Quote, these are incidents, characters, or settings, which, as a practical matter, are indispensable or at least standard in the treatment of a given topic. Attempted escapes, flights through the woods pursued by baying dogs, the sorrowful or happy singing of slaves, the atrocity of the buying and selling of human beings, and other miseries are all found in stories at least as old as Mrs. Stowe's.  All of these images, the court ruled, constituted unprotected ideas because they were standard vignettes in the genre of slave narratives. Some more recent and perhaps surprising applications of this doctrine of Senza fair involve photography. Here too, courts refuse to grant copyright protection to images that they conclude are standard or typical of a particular genre. For example, in the 2005 case of Bill Diodata photography versus Kate Spade, the plaintiff contended that this photograph, which appeared in an advertisement for women's shoes, was infringed by this one. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the positioning of a model sitting on a toilet with her feet angled inward, though, quote, seemingly unnatural, end quote, was a common trope. Photographing stylish women in this pose to showcase fashion accessories was an idea, quote, used often in popular culture, end quote. Similarly, in the 2003 Gentio case, the photograph on the right side of the slide was held not to infringe the copyright in the photograph on the left side, because even if one photographer had been imitating the other, the compositional elements they had in common were, quote, standard photographic conventions or devices, end quote, and thus not copyrightable. Here's a more straightforward application of the same principles. Suppose I write and publish a cookbook, a collection of recipes of a particular sort. Suppose further that I created some of those recipes myself. You copy some of my recipes and include them in your own cookbook. Have you engaged in copyright infringement? If the recipes that you copied contain nothing more than descriptions of ingredients, quantities, ways of combining things, cooking times, and so forth, in other words, instructions for creating the dishes in question, then the answer is no. The reason is that unadorned recipes are said to be ideas or methods of operation and thus not subject to copyright protection. By contrast, if the recipes you copied included expressive embellishments, for example, descriptions of how the dishes taste or suggestions concerning social circumstances for which they would be appropriate, then you would be in trouble because such things are considered expression. Another example, maps have been protected by copyright law for a long time. But not all components of maps enjoy copyright protection. For example, the location of roads, mountains, rivers, and political boundaries, the names of cities and towns, are all excluded from copyright protection. Thus, you can copy such things from someone else's map onto your own without running a foul of the law. This shouldn't be terribly surprising. What's more interesting is the fact that newly coined place names are not shielded. Suppose, for example, an explorer surveys a remote mountain range, selects names for the hitherto nameless peaks, and draws up a map that includes those new names. Another cartographer copies those features and those names into his own map. Copyright infringement? No. It's sometimes said that the newly applied names, although created by the original explorer, become facts once applied to the features of the world. But that can't be right. By the same logic, the text of my novel becomes a fact once it's published and I lose copyright protection for it. A more plausible reason is that to recognize copyright protection for newly created place names would frustrate important public policies concerning the communication of geographic information. Latent in that rationale is the seed of a much more general principle that will flower in subsequent lectures. So, what aspect of maps do enjoy copyright protection? The answer is original selection, arrangement, or presentation of individually unprotected elements. The net effect is that entirely conventional maps receive no protection whatsoever. Consider, for example, this screenshot of a map created by Google of the sector of Cambridge, Massachusetts, that includes Harvard University. If I copy it without permission, as I've done for the purpose of this slide, have I engaged in copyright infringement? Probably not, because it's difficult to locate in the Google map any unconventional selection or presentation element. We come finally to the tricky case of history. Perhaps the most striking effect of the idea expression distinction is the limited legal protection enjoyed by works of history. Suppose, for example, I spend years investigating the life of a little known politician and then write and publish a biography of him. You read my book and then, relying on it, quickly write your own biography of the same politician. You're a better writer than I am, so your book sells better. I'm angry. I point out that you could not have written your book without mine and that most of the story I told and most of the arguments I made in my book can be found in yours. Do I have a copyright claim against you? If the things you lifted from me consist of facts about the life of the politician, then the answer is no. No matter how much time and pain, it took me to ferret them out. This principle, for example, governed the outcome of the litigation between two historians, rising out of the close similarity between two biographies of the Rosenbergs, who were tried for treason in 1953. Because all of those similarities were deemed to involve facts, the defendant escaped liability. What if I included in my biography some speculations and the same speculations appear in yours? If I have represented my speculations as facts, then they too are unprotected. The rule underlying this outcome is known as copyright estoppel, having depicted an assertion as a fact. I am said to be a stopped from subsequently recharacterizing it. So for example, in the Nash case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff's contention in his book, that John Dillinger had not been killed by the FBI at the Biograph Theater, but had lived on in California, was not protected by copyright because the plaintiff had offered that contention as a fact. What if you live from my biography, not a factual contention, but an historical theory? Once again, I will lose, but for a different reason. Historical theories are considered ideas and thus unprotected. So for example, in the Holing case, the Court of Appeals held unprotected the plaintiff's assertion that the Hindenburg dirigible had been destroyed by a member of its crew in an effort to discredit the Nazis. The bottom line is that an historian should not expect to get much protection from copyright law. To be sure, if a second historian copies significant hunks of her pros or closely tracks original ways in which she has expressed arguments, she may have a claim. But if, as in the usual case, a second historian freerides on her research and lifts facts or ideas from her books, she has no recourse. These examples surely do not exhaust the various contexts in which the idea expression has been applied to limit the scope of copyright, but they should suffice to give you an overall sense of the law in this area.


Bandung income disparities is getting wider and wider meaning that more and more rich people are here and also at the same time there are a lot of people so poor that have difficulties to access the food. One of the important actors in the food system is the street vendors. Street vendors is the most cheapest affordable food for the poorest. And probably you think oh why don't they just cook themselves. Okay the first thing not all of their place to stay is make it possible. There's no cooking facilities the space is so small so the only way they can access food is to gain access to the food that already made outside. The food are available but the problem is accessibility because they are poor they currently afford the cheapest food available so it's not the accessibility of physical accessibility but economical accessibility that's the problem. Indonesia now in term of food security still in the narrative of production thinking of to gain food security status for national or for regional is by producing so much enough for the population. I think the issue now it's more than that it's not that simple even though we have enough production we have enough supply then if it's not accessible to the poor then it's not there for them. The ideal bandung will be the bandung that have or create good quality accessible food for everybody.


Hello, everybody! This video tells you about resetting Windows 10, which means your restore is default settings. In fact, this is the same as reinstalling Windows, but without using additional drives. All you need is a system recover image, and it is already in your system. If you can't start Windows 10, and you can log into the system, but it just began working in the wrong way, you can do the following. Go to the settings menu, select updating security, switch to recovery, and reset this PC. Click on get started. You can choose between the options keep my files, or remove everything. If you use the first one, keep my files, the system will keep documents and other user files. However, all applications will be deleted, and you will have to reinstall them. But if you go for remove everything, the system will ask you if you want to remove all drives or only the drive where Windows is installed, in case you have several drives in your system. In the next window, you can choose between just remove my files, or remove files and clean the drive. If you are the only person using this computer, you'd better choose just remove my files. The second option suggests cleaning the drive in such a way that files cannot be recovered. This way is safer if there are other people who use this computer, but it also takes more time. Now, let us select one of the options, for example, just remove my files. The only thing left to do now is to click on reset, and wait for the system to reinstall automatically. This is the button. In the process, the computer will restart several times. It really looks like you are rinsed in Windows. Thanks for watching, and good luck.


I'm Dr. Jan Kearney from Lorna College of Medicine. We're seeing more and more people in the United States getting sick from COVID-19 every day and also in Vermont. Schools and restaurants are closed and we don't know exactly how long this is gonna last. This is very hard for everyone, but there is something we can do. There's a proven public health strategy called social distancing that we can all use each and every day, whether at home or at work, that will help us. We know that social distancing works. It just means separating people from each other. From more than 100 years ago, from the 1918 influenza pandemic, were communities that practice social distancing. They closed schools, they limited public gatherings.  They separated themselves from each other. Those communities had less illness and they did much, much better. We can do the same thing today. What does social distancing look like? What does it mean? For people, it means staying six feet away from each other. Instead of a handshake or a hug, we greet each other with a smile or just a wave. We stay home when we're sick. We wash our hands frequently. And in workplace settings, sometimes we work at home. The flexibility at the University of Vermont means many more people are working at home and that's a great thing that protects them. And then it means there's less people in the workplace and they're more spaced out. Some of the other things we can do are to not have face-to-face meetings. Use our technology, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Skype, and the telephone to see each other's faces and hear each other's voices. I think that's especially important right now. I know this is hard and as the situation is changing, we're monitoring those recommendations and what is happening here in our own community in the state of Vermont and across our country. And we'll change as those recommendations change. And even though sometimes we're by ourselves working in our home or in the only person in our office or a laboratory, our conference room, we're all lonely together right now. And we also have to remember that what we're doing to protect ourselves and our families also protects other people from getting sick and sometimes seriously so. And I think that's a great thing.