11 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2010/2155(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas scarcely any investment takes places in trans-European transport networks (TEN) in border regions, although it is precisely at the cross-border interfaces that modernisation is urgently required; sees an instance of classic European added value in the removal of cross-border infrastructure barriers;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas citizens must be placed at the centre of the priorities of territorial cooperation, and therefore a place-based approach should be advocated,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas closer territorial cooperation is dependent on progress made with European integration and coordination in all fields, and whereasthat contributes to the European integration and territorial cohesion, and that the territorial cooperation is in itself is a testbed for European integration,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced of the European added value of territorial cooperation and the key role it plays in deepening the internal market and fostering closer European integration; in several sectoral policies, and calls for territorial cooperation to remain one of the pillars of cohesion policy;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that territorial cooperation has proved its effectiveness and that its potential as a source of competitiveness has so far been insufficiently tapped as a result of the inadequate resources allocated to it; calls for the budget for the ‘territorial cooperation’ objective to be at least 57% of the overall cohesion policy budget for the next programming period;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls for development of the trans- European networks to be promoted more strongly in border regions from now on; calls for the existing Objective 3 to be broadened to include support for access to or modernisation of TEN infrastructures (‘3 + TEN’); also calls for a new budget approach for cross-border infrastructure with effect from 2013, which should not, however, come at the expense of existing territorial cooperation programmes;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls nonetheless – with a view to ensuring the coherence and continuity of territorial cooperation measures and given the strategic nature of the projects in question – for greater flexibility in exploiting the scope offered by Article 21 of the ERDF Regulation with regard to the location of cross-border and transnational cooperation activities; to that end, calls for a reviewcertain flexibility to be implemented in the application of the geographical limit of 150 km set for cross-border cooperation programmes for coastal and maritime regions;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses once again the importance of interregional cooperation, but deplores the lack of funds allocated to it; calls for a reduction from 75% to 60% in the Community cofinancing rate of this programme for participants from the regions covered by the ‘competitiveness and employment’ objective, encourages regions to make better use of the scope for interregional cooperation offered by Article 37(6)(b) of the basic regulation in order to raise the number projects in this objective; advocates, therefore, that the ‘interregional’ component of Objective 3 should also be used to facilitate the coordination and running of such projects, to pool know-how and to exchange good practices, on the basis of ever closer cooperation with, and; stresses for the future operational programmes the need to acquire the support of, INTERACT and the capacity for successful assistance schemes, which are to be modelled after the RC LACE project;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that greater complementarity betweenthe mainstreaming of the ‘territorial cooperation’ objective, on the one hand, and with the ‘convergence’ and ‘competitiveness and employment’ objectives, on the other, is needed; suggests that regional operational programmes should participate in the cross-border and transnational projects that concern them by earmarking funding by territory for priority projects identified in advance and agreed with their partners in the programmes, in accordance with the principles of multi-level governance and the partnership; calls for the programming to be better co-ordinated than it has been before;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Advocates, therefore, more effective coordination between the various Commission directorates-general concernedStates that the conditions for cross- border co-operation in the ENPI are not sufficient for its appropriate development; advocates, therefore, more effective coordination between the various Commission directorates-general concerned; is convinced of the ultimate necessity to reintegrate the ENPI cross- border co-operation programmes into the Territorial Co-operation Objective of the cohesion policy;