7 Amendments of László SURJÁN related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthenedConsiders thorough structures and responsibilities in the multi-level governance as the realisation of the principle of subsidiarity; calls for this partnership principle and the sense of ownership of the actors involved to be further strengthened by introducing detailed binding provisions in a Territorial Pact to be decided in each Member State; in order to boost up i.a. more result oriented planning and implementation;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation to environmental protection; economic, social and territorial cohesion; highlights the need to link territorial cooperation programmes more effectively with territorial strategies that are based on a shared commitment from regional stakeholders; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; calls for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of integrated development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links; establishing a mutual win-win situation for both the towns and cities and their rural environments; Considers reinforced cohesion between urban and rural areas of special importance in addressing problems of areas populated by disadvantaged communities via Community instruments;
Amendment 407 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Takes the view that new conditionality shall not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved; encourages development of consistent, standard systems of conditionality for both the ERDF and ESF that should be objectively assessable as well;
Amendment 442 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41b. Calls for attention and further support to those entities that are effected by deep poverty and often tensed co- existence of majority-minority cultures at sub-regional levels; considers that such sub-regional entities can easily remain deep poverty pockets facing even stronger segregation even within regions that are not necessarily lagging behind the statistical averages; notes that concentrated efforts should be made for the development of these entities (e.g.: lower levels of required own resources for growth and job creating projects targeting specifically these entities; thorough technical assistance boosting up the pool of local human resources; encouragement for state aids with regard cost-sharing of projects; concentrated resources from ESF for facing the specific problems of the mass of long term unemployed and unqualified workers via developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs and by paying close attention to cross-cutting priorities such as the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups suffering not only from social and economic exclusion, but also spatial segregation);
Amendment 536 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 a (new)
Paragraph 55 a (new)
55a. Considers that while reimbursement should arrive after EU funding has paid out in the projects, no extra burdens should be put on the beneficiaries in terms of interest rates that do not reflect the low risk factor of such loans by any banks or other financial institutions;
Amendment 564 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Draws attention – with up-to-date figures in support of its contention – to the extremely severe financial consequences for cohesion policy of the accession of new Member States11; emphasises that, from a cohesion policy point of view, the Union's capacity to absorb new members would, on the basis of these figures, be severely overstretched; calls for use of the IPA to be extended to special preliminary forms of EU neighbourhood status or membership and rei not only the financial consequences of the accession should be seen but also the advantages of the enlarged markets for the whole EU; considers that European integrates its call for graduated cohesion policy arrangements for largion should proceed according to the natural geographical ties of Europe candidat the cfountries such as Turkeyding values of the Union;