Activities of Rosa D'AMATO related to 2022/2032(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report - EU border regions: living labs of European integration (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report
Amendments (36)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the key role of cohesion policy in fostering economic, social and territorial convergence across the EU; expresses concern, however, about persistent inequalities, socio-economic disparities and uneven demographic decline, with many less developed regions falling behind and getting caught in a ‘development trap’ in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; notes with concern the severe drop in recent years of an adequate level of national funding of Member States' towards their poorer regions; recalls the importance of respecting the EU rule on additionality;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that cohesion policy, with a budget of EUR 392 billion between 2021 and 2027, remains the EU’s primary investment tool and notes that its share of public investment in Member States increased considerably over the 2014-2020 period; is convinced that cohesion policy can only continue to play its present role as a vector for investment and job creation and a solidarity mechanism for all EU regions if it has solid funding and is guided by a strategic approach; underlines that the current cohesion policy is just enough to halt the further economic separation of European regions, but that it is not able to reverse the trend;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that climate change affects underdeveloped regions disproportionally, mainly those located in the southern and eastern parts of Europe, and that climate change is thus the biggest external threat to Europe’s cohesion in the future; therefore highlights the need to increase efforts to fight climate change and enhance climate mitigation, particularly in those regions, to enhance cohesion and mitigate climate risks; emphasises that cohesion policy must support a strong climate mainstreaming in all sectors and ensure that all EU funding programmes and projects are embedded in strategies that support the Union's climate, energy and environmental objectives and actively contribute to reaching the relevant targets, while ensuring that the "do no significant harm" principle is fully respected; highlights the importance of linking regional environmental strategies with ambitious energy, climate and environmental policies and in particular the implementation of the Paris Agreement to keep 1.5 degree within reach, the FitFor55 package and the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy, aiming at achieving a climate neutral EU as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest; recalls the importance of programmes to be based on the energy efficiency first principle and on prioritising local production and consumption, both for energy, but also for food and feed products; is of the opinion that in the coming years we will need more resources in order to mitigate the social and economic consequences for European regions from natural disasters that are caused by climate change and that this will mean adjustments to the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), both in terms of procedure and resources;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses that the goal of a carbon- neutral Europe by 2050 at the latest should be coupled with the goal of a fair and just transition; stresses that particular attention should be paid to reduce air and water pollution, as they are preconditions to good living conditions, as well as to energy poverty which remain too high in many less developed regions; stresses that housing and energy prices are rising, and reiterates that cohesion funding should be dedicated to social housing and to improving the quality of the housing stock, in particular its energy efficiency,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Is of the opinion that less developed regions will need a new strategic framework at EU level to boost education and training, increase investments in research and innovation, and improve the quality of their institutions in order to overcome the development trap that is affecting their recovery; stresses that infrastructure quality differs vastly between urban and rural regions as well as from the East to West or from South to North of the EU and that brain drain disproportionately affects less developed regions and, if left unaddressed, the phenomenon will have long-term effects on the future of the European Union;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 a (new)
Citation 28 a (new)
— having regard to the study “EU lagging regions: state of play and future challenges” of September 2020 (PE 652.215),
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Recalls the importance of a stronger gender mainstreaming in cohesion policy in light of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) and highlights the specific role of women, in particular in remote areas, as they play a major role in civil society and sustainable economic growth as well as the care economy and at the same time face difficulties in accessing the labour market, as well as gender pay gap and access to public services such as health and childcare; emphasizes the role of young women in particular in rural areas and their precarious role in rural societies;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the implications of climate change can have the biggest impact on all European regions, bringing more drastic changes to the life of people and livelihood of regions especially in less developed regions, mainly located in the southern and eastern parts of Europe; whereas climate change thus is the biggest external threat to Europe’s cohesion in the future;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Welcomes the Commission’s view that horizontal policies in cohesion policy should incorporate regional proofing, to ensure they respect the principle of "do no harm to cohesion"; is looking forward to the upcoming publication of specific guidelines on how to implement and enforce this principle across EU policies;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned by the significant delay in cohesion policy implementation for the 2021-2027 period; urges the Commission and the Member States to speed up the adoption of partnership agreements and operational programmescalls on the Commission to ensure that national authorities duly take into account internal cohesion while drafting and implementing Structural and Investment Funds’ projects; urges the Commission and the Member States to speed up the adoption of partnership agreements and operational programmes without jeopardizing compliance with the Charter of Fundamental rights, rule of law, and the European code of conduct on partnership; stresses that the European Commission should diligently implement the guidance on "do no significant harm" in the negotiation of the programmes as well as through the entire implementation process and should monitor carefully all projects in this respect; stresses that the prolonged under- implementation of cohesion funds could lead to an abnormal backlog in payments and in the "Reste à liquider" (RAL) in the second part of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), putting additional pressure on payments during the negotiations on the post-2027 MFF;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls for an in-depth assessment of the use of retrospective projects, that is projects or operations which have incurred expenditure or are completed before EU co-financing has been formally applied for or awarded, i.e. which are financed retrospectively in less developed regions across the EU, and their risk in hampering the added value and the strategic vision of cohesion policy objectives; recalls that retrospective projects are another means that have been used by Member States, especially in the context of 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming, of absorbing funding by creating additional new expenditure or by substituting eligible expenditure;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism should be applied to both the Union budget and to NextGenerationEU; stresses further that approval of the national plans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility should be made conditional on the fulfilment of all 11 criteria set out in Article 19 and in Annex V to the regulation on the Recovery and Resilience Facility; expects the Commission to exclude all risks of programmes under cohesion policy contributing to the misuse of EU funds or to breaches of the rule of law before approving the partnership agreements and cohesion policy programmes; calls on the Commission to apply the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation more stringently in order to tackle the discriminatory use of EU funds, in particular any use of a politically motivated nature; requires that the Commission analyses whether the draft documents already submitted or expected to be sent in the future are in full compliance with the enabling conditions on the effective application and implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as outlined in Annex III of the Common Provisions Regulation, and not to approve any partnership agreement or programme before these in- depth analysis on these specific aspects lead to a high level of assurance of no risks;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Is concerned about the lack of genuine implementation of the Partnership Principle and is of the opinion that local and regional authorities, other stakeholders, including civil society organisations as well as citizens, should be more included in the decision-making and funding process to ensure the needs are addressed properly and have the possibility to monitor implementation; stresses that this process should take into account the gender perspective; emphasizes that one of the lessons learned from the preparation of the Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) is that the potential that exists at local level could be better mobilised and investments in regional development could be made more efficient by strengthening and facilitating citizens participation and community-led local development (CLLD) and similar bottom- up tools;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Calls for a specific focus on the Union’s low growth and poorer regions that are diverging both internally and externally from the EU average with the current framework of Cohesion Policy, building on the lessons learned from the Catching Up initiative;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas less developed regions will need a new strategic framework at EU level to boost education and training, increase investments in research and innovation, and improve the quality of their institutions to avoid falling into a development trapin order to overcome the development trap that is affecting their recovery;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas infrastructure quality differs vastly between urban and rural regions as well from the East to West or from South to North of the EU;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the flexibility introduced through the Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) proposals to help Member States deal with the impact of the war in Ukraine, following the model of the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives, CRII and CRII+; highlights that this flexibility underlmines, however, that cohesion policy funding must primarily serve its long-term policy objectives and the strategic approach of cohesion policy that aims to tackle regional disparities across the EU in the long-run, with a dedicated budget for climate and a thematic concentration for specific policy objectives and, in particular, strengthening resilience, and that cohesion policy must not become a source of financing to make up for shortcomings in budgetary flexibility or crisis response mechanisms within the MFF.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Believes that direct access to cohesion funds should be granted to regional and local authorities;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Is of the opinion that the role of small cities, towns and villages should be bolstered in order to support local economies and address demographic and climate challenges and to limit urbanization; urges, therefore, to extract the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) from the Common Agricultural Policy and integrate it into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure a maximum of synergies and complementarities between the different funding programmes;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Highlights that the pandemic and the current geopolitical tensions have confirmed the need to work towards a renewed Economic Governance Framework, including the revision of the Stability and Growth Pact and stresses the need to introduce a golden rule for green investments in cohesion policy;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Emphasizes the importance of cross-border projects in bringing people together and in that way opening new potentials for sustainable local development and cross-border cooperation; stresses the importance of cross-border investments to enhance innovations, technology transfer, common solutions and synergies and in that way increase territorial cohesion beyond borders and strengthen European solidarity; therefore urges the Commission to develop funding possibilities that bring actors from different regions closer together in bigger projects (INTERREG +) and to promote best practices in the area;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas brain drain disproportionately affects less developed regions and if left unaddressed, the phenomenon will have long-term and permanent effects on the future of the European Union;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5 e. Recalls the need for minimizing administrative burden for local and regional authorities to the extent possible under applicable legislation, in particular for small beneficiaries; calls especially for easier funding applications and processes in order to ensure projects needed in the regions are being realized and supported adequately, also in a financial manner; calls on the Commission to draw up regional guides to support citizens in applying for EU cohesion funds; stresses that the Commission should evaluate and, if needed, oblige Member States to simplify their respective application and funding process while ensuring the full protection of the financial interest of the EU;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the goal of a carbon- neutral Europe by 2040 at the latest should be coupled with the goal of a fair and just transition; whereas air and water pollution as well as energy poverty generally remain too high in many less developed regions;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas disparities remain in the speed of the digital transition across Europend connectivity across Europe especially in rural and remote areas;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas housing and energy prices are rising, realizing the need for cheaper, state owned housing and accelerated deep renovation to fight energy poverty;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)
Recital M b (new)
Mb. whereas Cohesion Policy funding should comply with the Charter of Fundamental rights, the principles of Rule of Law, and the European code of conduct on partnership;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M c (new)
Recital M c (new)
Mc. whereas the pandemic and the current geopolitical tensions have confirmed the need to work towards a renewed Economic Governance Framework, including the Stability and Growth Pact, and to introduce a golden rule for Cohesion Policy investments that do not deviate from the respect of the Paris Agreement’s objectives, including the co-funding of the Structural and Investment Funds;
Amendment 66 #
1. Is convinced that cohesion policy can only continue to play its present role as a vector for investment and job creation and a solidarity mechanism for all EU regions if it has solid funding; stresses that this implies providing for the same level of funding as in the 2021-2027 financial period, topped up with the Just Transition Fund (JTF) II budgetary resource and guided with the strategic approach; underlines that current Cohesion Policy is just enough to halt the further economic separation of European regions, but not able to reverse the trend; stresses that this implies that the future Cohesion Policy must be provided with an increase of funding in regard to the 2021-2027 financial period, also in light of the expected upcoming recession, topped up with the Just Transition Fund (JTF) II budgetary resources, in order to effectively tackle the impacts of climate change on the regions;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the Commission’s view that horizontal policies should incorporate regional proofing, to ensure they respect the principle of ‘do not harm to cohesion’. Calls on the Commission to issue specific guidelines on how to implement and enforce this principle across EU policies;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls for conventional macroeconomic indicators and the GDP to be complemented with new indicators in order to address the new European priorities such as the European Green Deal or the European Pillar of Social Rights and to better reflect the ecological and digital transitions and the wellbeing of people; calls for an impact assessment and a territorial dimension to be considered to allocate Cohesion budget in order to take into account the diverse economic, social and territorial situation in the different Member States;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls for a specific EU initiative to support the Union’s low growth and poorer regions that are diverging both internally and externally from the EU average, building on the lessons learned from the Catching Up initiative; reiterates the need for a place-based policymaking via an appropriate analysis of low-growth patterns and the necessary tools to address them;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Believes that EU ad-hoc initiatives and pilot projects in the coming years should aim at ensuring a fair representation of EU territories, duly taking into account geographic balance, economic development and the urban- rural divide; reiterates that failing to do so may risk jeopardising the very principles of territorial cohesion;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes with concern the severe drop in recent years of adequate level of national funding of Member States towards their poorer regions; recalls the importance of respecting the EU rule on additionality; calls on the Commission to ensure that national authorities duly take into account internal cohesion while drafting and implementing Structural and Investment Funds’ projects;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Calls for an in depth assessment of the use of back-up projects especially in less developed regions across the EU and their risk in hampering the added value and the strategic vision of cohesion policy objectives;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Calls on the Commission to exclude the national co-financing of the investments funded by the ERDF, JTF, ESF+, INTERREG, that do not deviate from the respect of the Paris Agreement’s objectives, from the assessment of the Member States’ fiscal position in the context of the Stability and Growth Pact;