Activities of Mauri PEKKARINEN related to 2023/2121(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States (debate)
Amendments (30)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on harnessing talent in Europe’s regions [insert footnote OJ C 188, 30.5.2023, p. 1],
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
– having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 2018 on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2018)0373),
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the updated proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of XX December 2023 on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2023)XXXX) [exact title to be specified after publication],
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy post-2027 of XXX29 November 2023 ,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the outcomes of the 2014- 2020 programming period prove the indispensable role of cohesion policy as the onlymain regional development instrument that is geared to local needs; whereas because of cohesion policy’s positive local impact, no other EU investment policy could replace it;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the urbanisation and the demographic changes between regions have a negative effect especially on rural areas, sparsely populated areas and less developed regions; underlines the effects of Russian war of aggression especially on EU's eastern border areas;
Amendment 93 #
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 investment 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 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 110 #
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 repurposing of cohesion funding should be a bottom-up driven process, initiated either by a Member State or by its regional or local level; underlines the main purpose of the EU's cohesion policy to reduce disparities among Member States and especially between regions in the Member States; acknowledges that cohesion policy has succeeded in reducing disparities among Member States, while in some Member States the disparities between regions have increased;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls the “do no harm to cohesion” principle, introduced by the 8th Cohesion Report and meaning no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities; calls for a stronger integration of this principle as cross-cutting principle in EU policies;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Points out that possible enlargements of the EU will affect all regions; calls on the Commission to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing a new regulation for the post- 2027 cohesion policy in order to mitigate the effects;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Stresses that GDP as the sole indicator of development fails to take into account all aspects of development; recalls that in addition to economic issues, health, education, sustainability, equity and social inclusion are integral parts of the EU development model; calls for GDP to be complemented with new criteria (e.g. social, environmental, demographic);
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Underlines the multi-dimensional nature of rural development, which goes beyond agriculture per se; insists on the need to implement a rural proofing mechanism to assess the impact of EU legislative initiatives on rural areas; notes, however, that only 11,5 % of people living in rural areas work in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; calls, therefore, for the reintegration of the EAFRD under the strategic framework of the CPR as a separate fund; emphasises that being part of the cohesion policy funds strengthens the possibilities and synergies – via an integrated, multi-fund approach – for investments in rural areas beyond agriculture and for regional development;
Amendment 155 #
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 regional and 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 effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events;
Amendment 175 #
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; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12maintained at least at 8 %; calls for this funding to be co- programmed with local authorities and for their benefitnd regional authorities ; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge 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 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the reductiona review of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for more flexibility to cater for regional and local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closur remains a corner stone to achieve the transition towards a more competitive and smarter Europe, as well as a net zero carbon economy and resilient Europe; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for initial allocations and co- financing rates to be assessed on the basis of NUTS 3 (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising ; underlines that such a shift should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas; stresses that this is necessary in order not to stall the development trajectory of metropolitan areas that were previously supported more intensively by cohesion policye importance, as highlighted in the 8th EU Cohesion Report, to support regions in a development trap, characterised by long periods of slow or negative growth, with low productivity growth and low levels of job creation;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects in urban as well as in rural areas, the focus shcould 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; callsgiving SMEs to the possible extent the opportunity to participate in the projects calls on the Commission for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the creation of local cohesion boards in the managing authorities and monitoring committees, which should have decision-making powers, including on co-programming and co-reprogramming with local authoritiespossibility to create regional and local cohesion boards with decision-making powers in those Member States where managing authorities and monitoring committees exist and operate only at the national level; reiterates that these boards should include representatives of urban and rural administrations, including mayors order to respect multi-level governance;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is convinced that promoting an increased sense of local ownership in the long term, the durability of EU projects and higher co-financing leverage can be achieved through more fiscal decentralisation towards munithe involvement of regional and local authorities in preparation and implementation of projects and by improving the financipal resources of these authorities ; acknowledges that such a path improves municipalthe borrowing capacity of regions and municipalities linked to financial instruments provided by the EU budget; underlines that regional and local budgets need more fiscal space to compensate for inflation shocks and crises;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. CStresses that differences exist between Member States when it comes to the competences of authorities; calls for paths for the decentralisation of cohesion policy management to be explored in Member States where managing authorities only exist and operate on national level in order to bring management closer to the regional and local level; stresses that preparatory work should ensure thadequate adequatministrative capacity and institutional backing is availablemust be the condition for this in order to ensure effectiveness, to reduce the number of irregularities as well as nond to avoid additional administrative burden for contractors and for final beneficiaries;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Insists on a critical review of Commission’s ad hoc initiatives and the thorough screening of new initiatives regarding quality and quantity; demands that this process is managed jointly and in partnership, with guaranteed representation of the local level, both of cities and rural areas; calls for limiting the number of Commission ad hoc initiatives, some of which prove to be of less use to the local level and might undermine the effectiveness overall cohesion appropriations planned in advance by scattering them; insists that every new Commission initiative must be accompanied by a corresponding budgetary top-up;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the creation of a mechanism for the early detection of red tape and actions in breach of or not effectively applying the multi-level governance principle; calls for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; is convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right to follow-up, perform checks and make corrective highlights that simplification should be one of the key drivers of the future commendationshesion policy;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; is convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right to follow-up, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Stresses that the future cohesion policy must continue to pay attention to the progress made in achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion in regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural and demographic handicaps, such as the outermost regions, sparsely populated areas, islands, mountainous areas and cross-border regions;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17 c. Underlines the importance of Article 349 TFEU in all Union policies with the aim to achieve the objectives set out therein; recalls the vital role played by cohesion policy in the outermost regions; underlines the importance of designing tailor-made programmes and measures for these regions and stresses the need to maintain the measures specifically designed for them, as the majority of the outermost regions are still among the less developed regions; reaffirms, in this context, the importance of dynamic regional cooperation in order to unleash the potential of the outermost regions;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17 d. Draws attention to the difficult situation of regions sharing a border with Russia and Belarus after the suspension of cooperation following the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine; calls on the Commission to closely work with the affected Members States to find sustainable solutions in order to address the social and economic challenges in those regions;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17 e. Recognises the importance to give special attention to the regions affected by the industrial transition; in this sense, welcomes the efforts by the Commission to address this issue with the Just Transition Fund, the first pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism in the context of the European Green Deal aiming at achieving the EU climate-neutrality by 2050;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 f (new)
Paragraph 17 f (new)
17 f. Underlines the importance of good governance at all levels in the management of cohesion policy; reminds that public money coming from taxpayers must not be misused; asks the Commission and the Member States to use and enhance existing mechanisms to detect and fight fraud and corruption;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 g (new)
Paragraph 17 g (new)
17 g. Invites the Commission and the Member States to do the outmost to ensure that all regions in the EU have access to high-speed broadband so that all regions are placed on an even footing to achieve the digital transition;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 h (new)
Paragraph 17 h (new)
17 h. Stresses the need to encourage the involvement of the private sector for investments in sustainable development; underlines in this regards the role SMEs can play for innovations; calls on the Member States and the Commission to propose measures to enhance the uptake of ready-for-market innovations by SMEs;