BETA

4 Amendments of Mieczysław Edmund JANOWSKI related to 2008/2174(INI)

Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2005 on the role of territorial cohesion in regional development1,
2008/12/10
Committee: REGI
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Endorses the main conclusions of the public consultation on the future of EU cohesion policy, as presented in the Fifth Progress Report on economic and social cohesion; is satisfied by the great interest that different stakeholders in the field of regional policy, in particular, local and regional authorities, have already attached to this debate;
2008/12/10
Committee: REGI
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that the view expressed in its above-mentioned resolution of 21 February 2008 includes the rejection of any attempt for re-nationalisation and the commitment to a single Community policy, which should also be in a position to address common challenges like globalisation, climate and demographic change, migration, energy efficiency; the strong belief that this policy should cover all EU regions, by representing an added value for everyone; the need to set priorities in the spending of EU structural policies and actions and the endorsement of the "earmarking" exercise; as well as the need for synergies on the ground and an integrated approach between the different sectoral policies in order to achieve the optimal result for growth and development on the ground;(Does not affect English version.)
2008/12/10
Committee: REGI
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that territorial cohesion should not only be limited to the effects of EU regional policy on the European territory, but to also be concerned with the territorial dimension of other sectoral Community policies with a strong territorial impactactivities; underlines, in the context of territorial cohesion, the importance of improving synergies between the different Community policies in order to coordinate and maximise their territorial impact on the ground; notes, however, that all Community policies will always keep their autonomy, and that this process does not imply the subordination of one policy to another;
2008/12/10
Committee: REGI