Activities of Andrey NOVAKOV related to 2023/2121(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States (debate)
Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on cohesion policy 2014-2020 - implementation and outcomes in the Member States
Amendments (54)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas in the 2014-2020 programming period, cohesion policy, as the EU’s main investment policy, has effectively supported its Treaty-based objective of achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion across the EU; whereas, at the same time, it has been an essential investment pillar of the Europe 2020 Strategy, by contributing to its goal of achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas cohesion policy investments across the EU have resulted in unparalleled positive impacts on regions, cities, rural, border and remote areas; whereas directly or indirectly, every EU Member State has experienced the positive effects of financing through the EU budget;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas the multi-priority investment approach of cohesion policy, combined with its shared management have contributed to the EU’s priorities: SME support, research and innovation, digitalisation, farming, urban infrastructure, tourism, large transport infrastructure, culture and education, healthcare, cross-border projects, the energy transition, energy efficiency, climate and environment; whereas EU cohesion investments build the EU in times of peace and rebuild it in times of crisis;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
A d. whereas the outcomes of the thousands of local projects confirm the indispensable role of regional investment through cohesion policy and consolidate its role and visibility in the multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
A e. whereas, despite not being a crisis instrument, cohesion policy was a key element of the EU’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the refugee and energy crises caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; whereas cohesion policy is a long-term investment and should not become a source of emergency funding to address every new challenge;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the delayed adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the multitude of crises as well as the introduction of the Next Generation European Union instruments hindered the speedy implementation of cohesion policy across the EU, posed programming and delivery challenges and introduced uncertainty in the context of initially planned regional EU investments;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas the additional funding provided in response to the recent crises, including NGEU, has put an additional strain on the administrative systems in the Member States, to the detriment of the implementation pace, but also to the detriment of their control and audit capacities;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas demographic ageing in the EU as a whole has led to a shrinking working age population; whereas many EU regions are facing the departure of their young and skilled workers to wealthier areas; whereas rural, peripheral, outermost and industrial transition regions in the EU are particularly affected by this worrying demographic trend;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
B d. whereas the principles of multi- level governance and partnership need a major overhaul in order to effectively involve the local level in the processes of programming, re-programming and implementation of European funds;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)
Recital B e (new)
B e. whereas the rigidity of cohesion policy's programming, including thematic objectives, thematic concentration, partnership agreements, strategic documents and territorial strategies, hinders flexibility in the context of eventualities that occur during the programming period;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)
Recital B f (new)
B f. whereas European Union pre- accession and enlargement processes require a well-balanced and targeted role of regional development and cohesion policy;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B g (new)
Recital B g (new)
B g. whereas public procurement rules in many Member States, alongside extra layers of national audits and controls, generate burden for managing authorities, beneficiaries and the overall implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Acknowledges that when it comes to research and innovation, cohesion policy funding has strengthened cooperation between the research community and businesses, helping turn research returns into marketable products or services; notes that according to Commission’s figures, by the end of 2021 more than 61 000 companies cooperated with research institutions and around 30 000 introduced new products to the market thanks to ERDF support; also notes that by the same date, more than 57 000 researchers were working in better facilities;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Underlines that cohesion policy has also helped bridge the digital divide between regions by supporting the development of ICT infrastructure in less developed regions; welcomes that as a result, by the end of 2021 6.3 million households had been provided with better broadband access, and this figure was expected to reach 11.5 million by the end of 2023, of which 83 % will be in Spain, Italy and Poland;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Points out that cohesion support has also brought tangible benefits to thousands of SMEs; stresses that this has been one of the best performing areas of ERDF support; underlines that this Fund had provided support to more than 2 million businesses by the end of 2021, which created 310 000 jobs; notes that evaluations carried out in Czechia, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria contain examples of SMEs that have become more competitive and innovative, increased their productivity and achieved better access to international markets;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c. Underscores that cohesion has also played an essential role in the transition to a low-carbon economy; welcomes also that reducing energy consumption in buildings is a major component of this shift and support from cohesion policy has already borne fruit; welcomes the fact that valuations by the Member States show that measures to improve energy efficiency have been effective across the EU; notes that by the end of 2021, for example, ERDF had helped improve the energy efficiency in 460 000 households;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)
Paragraph -1 d (new)
-1 d. Acknowledges that there is evidence that cohesion policy supported investments in several coal regions that were highly relevant for decarbonisation; notes that in Asturias, Spain, interventions focused on employment of youth and women in rural areas, incentivising entrepreneurship and social inclusion also notes that in Bulgaria, in the region of Yugoiztochen, cohesion funds have focused on energy efficiency, the modernisation of SMEs and the promotion of skills development;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)
Paragraph -1 e (new)
-1 e. Acknowledges that measures aimed at addressing renewable energy production have increased renewable production capacity in the EU by 3 660 MW by the end of 2021, with a target of 8 800 MW by the end of 2023; notes that positive results in this area are reported, for example, in Estonia and regions of France;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)
Paragraph -1 f (new)
-1 f. Underlines that evaluations of interventions in the area of climate change adaptation and risk prevention show a need of cooperation across borders to make measures financed by cohesion policy truly effective; underlines that some countries have already taken joint risk prevention and civil protection measures: there are examples of such cooperation between Italy and France, Czechia and Poland, and Italy and Austria; stresses that in regards to climate change adaptation, thanks to cohesion investments 21.7 million people are now less exposed to flooding;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 g (new)
Paragraph -1 g (new)
-1 g. Notes that cohesion support from ERDF and CF has also allowed to increase the number of people benefitting from better water supply (5.1 million people by the end of 2021) and a better management of their municipal waste; notes that most of the targeted beneficiaries (70 %) of the measures to improve drinking water, for example, live in Romania, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria and Czechia; also notes that in France and Belgium, cohesion-funded projects helped boost the circular economy;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)
Paragraph -1 h (new)
-1 h. Stresses that energy and transport networks have received significant investments from ERDF and CF; notes that although the impact of this kind of infrastructure projects can only be properly assessed in the longer term, according to evaluations carried out in Poland and Czechia some of the investments in road and rail infrastructures have already resulted in fewer road accidents, reduced travel times and less pollution; notes that in addition, in Member States such as Poland and Bulgaria the natural gas projects financed have contributed to the strategic objective of diversifying their energy supply; welcomes that fact that the Greece- Bulgarian gas interconnector in Bulgaria, supported by the ERDF, started operating in October 2022 and contributes to the EU’s strategic aims of autonomy of energy supply and diversification of sources;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 i (new)
Paragraph -1 i (new)
-1 i. Acknowledges that cohesion, especially through the ESF and YEI, has supported successful employment, social inclusion and educational and vocational training measures; stresses that by the end of 2021, 6.4 million people had found a job thanks to measures supported by ESF and YEI, and 8.8 million people had gained a qualification;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 j (new)
Paragraph -1 j (new)
-1 j. Underlines that evaluations from Member States such as Italy, Germany, Poland and Ireland showed that people, and especially young people, that had participated in training measures, apprenticeships and traineeships supported by cohesion funds had significantly increased chances of finding jobs; notes that Poland and Ireland achieved good results with projects aimed at the long-term unemployed; also notes that an evaluation of the Youth Employment Initiative 2014-2020 carried out in Hungary found that the programme had contributed significantly to the probability of participants being employed on the short-run, although this impact was declining with time; stresses that another evaluation from Hungary concluded that the labour market integration support schemes financed through the ESF had a positive and substantial impact on gaining employment; notes that an evaluation of the YEI carried out in Sweden found overall positive effects on employment for participants, especially those with a foreign background; stresses that training measures both for pupils and teachers have had a positive impact in early school leaving rates, for example in Germany, Portugal and Spain;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 k (new)
Paragraph -1 k (new)
-1 k. Notes that ESF helped entrepreneurs launch new businesses and provided training so that companies could better adapt to changes in the market; underlines that the dimension of the ESF programme in Thuringia, Germany, dedicated to strengthening entrepreneurship, supported, among other projects, the Thuringian Center for Start- ups and Entrepreneurship (ThEx); acknowledges that until the end of 2021, the centre had helped approximately 2 900 people start a new business in the region;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 l (new)
Paragraph -1 l (new)
-1 l. Stresses that cohesion policy financial support in for projects in the healthcare sector, mainly through ESF and ERDF investments: by the end of 2021, 59 million people had access to improved healthcare services across the EU; underlines that in Lithuania, for example, cohesion funded projects have managed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and the suicide rate;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 m (new)
Paragraph -1 m (new)
-1 m. Welcomes the cohesion policy contribution to territorial cooperation; notes that this specific goal of the ERDF helped fund cross-border transnational, or interregional projects in areas such as research, development and innovation and the environment; underlines that as reported by the Commission, without this specific cohesion support, most of these cooperation projects would not have taken place; stresses that by the end of 2021 more than 33 500 businesses had participated in cross-border transnational, or interregional research projects, and 165 000 people had benefitted from cross- border mobility initiatives;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 n (new)
Paragraph -1 n (new)
-1 n. Underlines that the impact evaluation of the Central Europe Interreg OP 2014-2020 showed that by end of 2021, the programme had had positive outcomes in the fields of innovation, low carbon, environment, culture and transport; underlines that 62 452 people were trained and 1 276 new full-time jobs were created; welcomes the fact that the Romania-Serbia Interreg programme also contributed to strengthening the cooperation of both countries in all relevant areas and the Sweden, Denmark and Norway Interreg programme showed positive results in the area of the green economy;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 o (new)
Paragraph -1 o (new)
-1 o. Welcomes cohesion policy's response to the latest crises; notes that more than 300 CRII(+) programme amendments were adopted, resulting in the redirection of almost EUR 28 billion of funds to tackle the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; underlines that EUR 8 billion, for example, were redirected to provide business support to the companies most affected by the COVID-19 crisis; also notes that there is evidence that the ERDF business support in Hungary, for example, made possible by these flexibilities had a positive effect in the companies targeted; notes that the Commission’s preliminary evaluation of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under CRII(+) was also mainly positive; underlines that CRII(+) reached their objectives in most Member States, which used these flexibilities to efficiently reallocate remaining resources to fund short-term working arrangements, social inclusion measures, and their healthcare system, depending on their national contexts; stresses that thanks to CRII (+) governments were also able to maintain their level of contracting and expenditure during this difficult period Coronavirus Dashboard, EC, data of August 2023;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 p (new)
Paragraph -1 p (new)
-1 p. Notes that REACT-EU support focused on recovery measures driven by future-oriented priorities, such as the green and digital transition: an example of such support is the project Green Change Zealand, that helped 20 SMEs in the region reduce their energy and material consumption through green conversion plans;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 q (new)
Paragraph -1 q (new)
-1 q. Notes that cohesion policy has effectively helped to reduce disparities over the years but, as made clear by the 8th Cohesion Report, some disparities still remain, for example in the area of employment, and new ones, such as the regional innovation divide, have now emerged; underlines that another very important challenge is the one of the development traps: while eastern EU regions have been catching up, other regions, especially in southern EU, have stagnated; notes also that demographic change will also affect all of the EU’s regions, but especially rural regions, which are already shrinking; underlines that this will, in turn, exacerbate the urban-rural divide; stresses that the green and digital transition is moving at very different speeds across EU regions;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 r (new)
Paragraph -1 r (new)
-1 r. Notes that, as evidenced by the analyses of cohesion policy funds performance, including by the ECA, there is room for improving the effectiveness of cohesion policy interventions for delivering on the EU’s overarching priorities and territorial challenges, such as competitiveness or the greening of the economy; cotes that a broader response involving other EU policies and an effective targeting of funds will be therefore essential to fight the geography of discontent;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 s (new)
Paragraph -1 s (new)
-1 s. Acknowledges that the repeated mobilisation of cohesion policy to response to crises and emergencies, however, has raised important questions; notes that as the Court of Auditors has already pointed out, the effects of this constant erosion of cohesion resources on the long-term objectives of the policy need to be carefully analysed; also notes that the administrative effort required for reprogramming might have affected implementation at a key moment in the operational programmes’ lifecycle; points out that the pressure to spend large amounts in a very short period of time has unfortunately contributed to an increase in irregular spending;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 t (new)
Paragraph -1 t (new)
-1 t. Stresses that structural funds and instruments are increasing in number and being scattered under different legal and strategic frameworks; notes in particular the creation of the RRF, which pursues cohesion priorities under a different legal framework and delivery model, or the exclusion of the EAFRD from the ESI Funds;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 u (new)
Paragraph -1 u (new)
-1 u. Stresses that a creeping erosion of the policy is taking place, with the emergence of thematic funds or initiatives supporting a particular sector or goal which rely on contributions from cohesion policy, such as STEP and ASAP proposals, ReactEU or RePowerEU, while the territorial approach of the policy is diluted;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 v (new)
Paragraph -1 v (new)
-1 v. Stresses that while it is difficult to deny cohesion policy support in the face of an emergency, it is evident that a proper emergency fund is needed and, with regards to cohesion policy funds, clear rules should be established to ensure the structural approach, on the one hand, and the need to face unforeseen events, on the other;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 w (new)
Paragraph -1 w (new)
-1 w. Acknowledges that if there is one thing that both advocates and opponents of cohesion policy agree on, it is the need for reform to achieve further simplification; notes that the regulatory framework 2021-2027 already introduced measures to simplify the delivery and management of cohesion policy, but it is clear from stakeholders’ feedback that this drive towards simplification must continue;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 x (new)
Paragraph -1 x (new)
-1 x. Acknowledges that the performance framework introduced in the 2014-2020 was an attempt to improve the result orientation of the policy, but it was the object of major criticism; notes that some sources suggested it should be more results-oriented, and not indicator- oriented, in order to focus on addressing the real underlying problems that the policy intends to solve; points out that the Court of Auditors analysis concluded that the new model did not make a noticeable difference to the way EU funding was allocated and disbursed; assumes that some part of those conclusions could be relevant for the implementation of the 2021-2027 programming period;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 y (new)
Paragraph -1 y (new)
-1 y. Underlines that the emergence of budgetary support instruments based on direct management and with a more simple delivery model could lead to a renationalisation of cohesion policy and endanger one of the basic principles of cohesion policy: multi-level governance; notes that there is a feeling of disappointment with the implementation of the RRF at local and regional level; underlines that a performance-based approach won’t work unless the regional and local level have a say on the definition of the targets against which the success of the policy will be measured;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional growth and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation as well as complementarity between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that cohesion policy should cover the territories of all Member States and all types of regions; underlines that this is the only way to address regional challenges in order to achieve a more balanced development pattern across the EU and in order to tackle unique regional development problems locally;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should not be used for new non- cohesion policy instruments and programmes, either within or outside the MFF; stresses that flexibility in the, including through optional transfers; acknowledges the need for built-in crisis flexibility including through repurposing of cohesion funding; should be a bottom-up driven process, initiated eithertresses, however, that such process should not be triggered by new legislative initiatives of the Commission but by athe Member State or by itss in a bottom-up fashion, initiated by a central government after binding consultations with regional orand local levels;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Asks the Commission to adjust the methodology to determine the level of support based on a region’s characteristics, such as areas with growth potential, the intensity of their particular challenges or their level of exposure to the impacts of ongoing transitions, to better define the path of each region towards convergence;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Believes that the trade-off between the necessary place-based orientation and the support to Union thematic priorities could be addressed through higher flexibility, a selectable menu of thematic objectives and challenges, accessible by regions proportionally to their development levels and needs; underlines that such a model reduces the rigidity of the programming process and factors in regional characteristics; stresses that cohesion policy should continue tracking the local landscape of needs in order to address them effectively in the context of closing regional disparities across the EU;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Believes that streamlining the architecture of EU funding instruments should be achieved through a merger of Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund +, Just Transition Fund, possibly extended to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, while the latter should be covered by the Common Provisions Regulation; acknowledges that such a reform would dramatically simplify the programming and implementation of the policy, enhance its visibility and effectiveness, and improve beneficiaries' accessibility; stresses that the adoption of individual fund specific regulations increases implementation delays and programming complexity; notes that such a grouping of funds should preserve the thematic orientation of the financing as well as the proportions of the individual financing streams for the respective fields;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Calls for an enlargement-ready cohesion policy by 2030 at the latest; stresses that existing cohesion policy budget cannot and must not cater for the expected reconstruction financing demand; stresses that existing cohesion policy budget should focus on convergence objectives; stresses that any reconstruction objectives should be achieved through distinct financing mechanisms, outside the scope of the MFF, through direct budgetary contributions from Member States, the private sector and external resources;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. Believes that the legislative proposal for the future cohesion policy must be released only after it takes into consideration the outcomes of a major consultation effort and an EU-wide line- up of events and formats on the ground that bring together all levels of governance and all other stakeholders;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3 f. Believes that cohesion policy needs major simplification, which should also enable accelerated implementation and absorption pace; calls, in this regard, for drastic modernisation of the delivery model - a shift from an activity-to- payment cycle to a performance-based implementation, based on tangible milestones, together with linkage to regional growth enhancing reforms underscoring the basics of cohesion policy; underlines that such a change should not undermine transparency, accountability and the protection of Union's financial interests; notes that audit and control system should nonetheless be adapted to the decoupling of payments from real expenditure and that further exploration of reliance on national systems is necessary;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side efferisk reduction and preparedness for a broad spectrum of disasters (climate-related, geological, health-related, man-made); believes that this should include a strong focus on climate change adaptation to help local authorities better manage risk and prepare to respond to the local impacts of climate change locally (from slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), (including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion andmong other events);
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the creation of a tTechnical aAssistance programme specifically designed forand Advisory Programme (TAAP) targeting smaller municipalities and cross-border and rural areas that facfor facing the new challenges such as the green transition and climate change; believes that the support should beunderlines that TAAP should complement existing technical and financial advisory instruments including those developed in collaboration between the EIB and the Commission, including on energy efficiency; calls for targeted support in the form of 100 % EU co- financing for technical, financial and administrative capacity- building, project design and preparation, identifying and building project pipeline as well as strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments), while for municipalities; underlines that the allocation criteria should include thebe a cross-point between number of inhabitants and the needs and challenges of these areasactual needs; believes that the new initiative should provide a single point of contact for municipalities to access support modalities as part of the URBIS platform;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments in order to address the demographic challenge, the development trap and the urban-rural divide; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12 %; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local authorities and for their benefit; underlines in this context that technical, financial and administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge, especially on climate change, which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for the combination of smaller regional financial instruments with larger regional platforms to enhance efficiencies and policy impact; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls for further involvement of Commission initiatives such as the EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy in the process of designing and implementing the next generation of cohesion policy rules; believes that city networks play an indispensable role in bridging the gap between policy-making and implementation on the ground; acknowledges that policy and implementation support, geared to mayors and local authorities, generates significantly better outcomes in the context of policy implementation;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Encourages multi-city projects and collaboration agreements in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, innovation, climate change and the greenmitigation/adaptation as well as green and digital transition; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of investments, instead of fragmentation and lack of synergies;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the further involvement of the EIB Group in cohesion policy investments, especially in less developed regions, through the provision of support to sustainable cities, sustainable energy and local innovation projects, including through further use of financial instruments and support for private sector investment; calls for the expansion of the local project assistance and financial instruments that complement and leverage EU grants; acknowledges that in many Member States EIB financing, such as the Structural Programme Loans, contributes significantly to the national co-financing obligations under cohesion policy, which in turn facilitates and accelerates the implementation of the programmes;