Activities of Oldřich VLASÁK related to 2010/2158(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy PDF (289 KB) DOC (196 KB)
Amendments (26)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU can be characterised by its polycentric development and variety of different sized urban areas and cities that have heterogenic competences and resources; expresses the view that it would be inappropriate and even problematic to adopt a common definition of ‘urban areas’ and of the term ‘urban’ in general as it is difficult to bring under the same umbrella the diversity of situations in Member States and regions and hence takes the view that any obligatory definition and designation of urban areas should be left to Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity based on European common indicators,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, building on the experience of the URBAN initiatives, urban actions, that have been integrated (‘mainstreamed’) into the regulatory framework for the Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment objectives in the 2007-2013 programming period; and whereas this mainstreaming has clearly expanded the available funding for cities, although the integrated approach to urban development risks to get lost due to a strengthened sectoral focus in the individual operational programmes,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas subsidiarity in its strengthened and widened form as defined in the TFEU, as well as multi-level governance and a better defined partnership principle are essential elements for the correct implementation of all EU policies and whereas engagement of resources and competences of local and regional authorities should be reinforced accordingly,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas simplification of policy implementation, including that of control and auditing mechanisms, help improve efficiency, reduce error rates, turn the policy architecture more user-friendly and increase visibility; and whereas simplification efforts should continue and be accompanied by the simplification of national and regional procedures so that representatives of urban areas can better orient and manage the utilization of European funds,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European level efforts to coordinate urban policies of Member States, the latter being implemented through informal ministerial meetings with the coordination of successive Council Presidencies and the active contribution of the Commission; considers in this context that local governments should be better informed of and more strongly involved in the activities of the intergovernmental strand; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Context of the Urban Dimension)
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes the approval of the Toledo Declaration and the Toledo Reference Document on urban regeneration; agrees with the need of more continuity and coordination in moving towards a joint working programme or ‘European Urban Agenda’; welcomes that Ministers underlined the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination with the European Parliament as well as the aim of strengthening the urban dimension in cohesion policy and promoting sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the Leipzig Charter at all levels; Congratulates Member States and the Commission on their efforts to continue the Marseille process and implement a reference framework for European sustainable cities; follows with interest the launch of the test phase of the reference framework; regrets however, that cities are not sufficiently involved in these processes; asks therefore the Commission and Member States to ensure better flow of information about this process to non- participating cities and to keep Parliament informed about further developments;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that further to the significant contribution of cohesion policy interventions to the development of urban areas, a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport, energy, etc.) and programmes which have a strong impact on urban development; stresses the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies and calls for enhancing the Urban Agenda in EU policies; reiterates in this context its call on the Commission to proceed with a territorial impact assessment of sectoral policies, and to extend the existing impact assessment mechanisms; welcomes in this context the ideas outlined in the Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion and the work carried out by ESPON;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that it is to a great extent urban areas that translate European policies into on the ground implementation; stresses that urban areas generate around 80% of the GDP of the EU and significantly contribute to the economic growth of Europe; on the other hand they also bear the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestions, pollution, exclushigh unemployment, crime, migration, social exclusion, social polarization etc.) that put their role as ‘motors of growth’ into risk; considers therefore that there is a clear justification for common engagement towards the urban areas of the EU; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Local Needs and/vs. European Priorities)
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that maximising the contribution of urban areas to the economic growth of the EU while sustaining or improving their parameters as ‘good places to live in’ is a shared goal of European, national, regional and local levels of government; stresses that while this goal is widely shared, the specific measures to pursue it can vary place by place; notes that as a consequence of historical development in the second half of the XXth century, some regions and cities will generally need to follow a wider palette of priorities including that of convergence and hence considers that sufficient flexibility must be therefore ensured allowing particular urban areas to find the solutions best suiting to their needs, macro- and micro-environment and development context;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to a great potential of modernisation of infrastructural investments through intelligent technologies which would deal with persisting problems in city governance, energy, water supply and utilization management, transport, tourism, housing, education, health and social care, public safety etc. through the concept of ‘smarter urban development’; believes that such ICT infrastructure investments can be seen as explicit driver for economic growth and innovation-based economic activity bringing together the following elements of public and private investment that can aim to generate new entrepreneurship, jobs and growth and thus should be regarded as a European priority:;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reiterates its view that the main weakness of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the design, implementation, communication and evaluation stages of the strategy; stresses the need for an improved governance system of the EU2020 Strategy with stronger integration of stakeholders at all stages; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Multi-level Governance and Partnership Principle)
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to make it obligatory for Member States to formally involve political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities into all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making (strategic planning, definition of and negotiation on the foreseen ‘National Strategic Development Contracts’); is of the opinion that this is the one and only way to reflect on local needs while preventing fragmentation of strategic goals and solutions;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that the link between local action plans and regional/national mainstream programmes should be strengthened and that the local development approach of local communities through local support groups and local action plans should be supported;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the positive role that cross- border cooperation, transnational cooperation and URBACT initiative plays in networking of cities, sharing best practice and generating innovative solutions; believes that supported networks should be linked to real development projects and calls on the Commission to enhance the platforms to allow experimental approach to urban regeneration and development;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates its call on the Commission to create an exchange programme ‘Erasmus for local and regional elected representatives’ in order to encourage the transfer of good practice in strategic local and urban development;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Reiterates its recommendations on the establishment of an EU High-level Group for Urban Development convening delegated experts from Member States responsible for coordinating urban policies and providing recommendations towards related EU policies and initiatives; notes that this body should exercise its activities without prejudice to the subsidiarity principle and the competences of Member States in urban development;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the fact that local elected authorities have direct political accountability in terms of strategic decision-making and investing public resources; therefore for reaching the goals of Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy there must be obligatory involvement of local elected bodies in the strategic decision making process and the broad use of the option of sub-delegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Sub-delegation of Responsibilities)
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Advocates for the integrated strategic planning principles as they can help local authorities with stepping up from thinking in terms of ‘individual projects’ to a more strategic inter-sectorial thinking to use their endogenous development potential at the same time, regrets the vague common definition resulting only in formal application in some cases; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Integrated Strategic Planning)
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Invites the Commission to prepare a study comparing the to-date practice of individual Member States in this area concluded by specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practise clarifying relations between these plans and other planning documents as well as promoting efficient partnership; calls on the Commission to make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; at the same time calls on the Commission to step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning, participatory policy-making and strategic urban development;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Reiterates its belief that only if sufficient resources are available for specific urban actions will it be efficient to draw up integrated urban development plans and therefore consequently recommends that available resources be concentrated on specific actions; proposes a minimum level of Structural Funds expenditure per inhabitant of the urban area per programming period;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Stresses that unavoidable austerity measures on all levels of government in the European Union put unprecedented stress on all types of public spending including strategic investments on economic development; is of the opinion that in the interest of improved efficiency of investment, better coordination of all available public resources (European, national, regional, local, private) and their more strategic allocation is needed; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Comprehensive Financial Planning)
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Advocates in this respect for comprehensive financial planning on local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning and calls on each user of public resources in line with the notion of result orientation to strictly sign-up to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the promising role of new financial engineering instruments put in place during the current programming period; calls on the Commission to evaluate the experience with these tools and adapt them where necessary to improve their competitive position on the financial market in comparison with common commercial products; for the benefit of making them more ‘user- friendly’, practical, attractive and hence more effective; believes that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans in this respect;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the financial flows between European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future; expresses its concern about the existing low level of pre-financing to projects and believes that in the future it should be ensured through the regulations that Member States are more clearly obliged to use pre-financing for payments to public beneficiaries such as urban authorities;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Calls on the European Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co- financing in order to minimise the red tape and potential errors in implementation;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Invites the Committee of the Regions to elaborate on the ideas how to better shape the urban dimension of future cohesion policy;