Activities of Oldřich VLASÁK related to 2013/2095(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on EU Member States preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy Programming period PDF (215 KB) DOC (109 KB)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the improvements made to the regulation that will introduce a stronger and more integrated approach to cohesion policy funding through the Common Strategic Framework; recognises that this it is vital to ensuring that projects have a greater impact and produce tangible results; calls on the Member States to introduce even more measures simplifying the bureaucracy and administration of the programmes that would lead to smother implementation and drawing of the funds;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights the fact that, while conditionality measures already exist in cohesion policy, the next programming period will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria; is of the opinion that the Cohesion Policy is a policy in support of cohesion between regions that should not serve as a guarantee of other EU policies aimed at macroeconomic reforms of the EU states;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that advanced preparations are dependent on the relevant authorities and organisations having sufficient capacity to invest time and money in preparations and to release sufficient number of personnel at an early stage;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Points out that some Member States are planning to change the content of their OPs, including a; welcomes that certain Member States decided to make changes towards multi- funded programmes or a reduction in the number of OPs at regional level;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potentially slower in their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy and, requires stronger control by the central government and is more demanding as regards coordination of respective authorities on the national, regional and local level;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Highlights the fact that a federal Member State or a Member State with elected regional governments could benefit from a more succinct, flexible and joined-up approach to OPs; stresses, with this in mind, that having a single OP, where previously there were individual OPs for each province/federation, brings many benefits by enabling priorities to be aligned more easily with national objectives;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recognises that a reduction in OPs would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States or in Member States with elected regional governments might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Calls on the Commission to make the preparedness of Member States´ Partnership Agreements public by means of e.g. a summary per Member State so that the other Member States and authorities may learn from good practices and approaches;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Recognises that common problems identified in the previous programming period included having priorities that were too broadly defined; calls, therefore, for a more strategic and streamlined approach to priorities in the future, with fewer priorities targeted at specific objectives; is of the opinion that certain flexibility of priorities is essential in order to reflect individual needs of the Member States, their regions and local authorities;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans; understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that evidence shows; is aware that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs due to its much longer existence and due to the fact that ITIs are a new instrument that will need some time to be properly put into practice; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Points out that a simplified application process for beneficiaries was identified by many Member States as an important aspect of preparations for the next programming period; welcomes this as a way of ensuring that the preparation and implementation of projects run smoothly, with reduced bureaucracy for applicants; calls on the Member States to identify and simplify also measures on the level of controls and auditing;