BETA

60 Amendments of François ALFONSI related to 2011/2035(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
- having regard to Article 3 (3) first paragraph of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which underlines that the EU shall work for a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 b (new)
- having regard to Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which underlines that the Union shall pursuit the objective of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources as well as the fight against climate change on regional and international level,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 c (new)
- having regard to Article 2, Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Article 3(3), paragraph 2 of the TEU which underline equality between women and men as a fundamental principle of the European Union and also an objective of the Union,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 22 September 2010 on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (P7_TA- PROV(2010)0341),
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document "Regions 2020 - an Assessment of Future Challenges for EU Regions" (SEC(2008)2868),
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
- having regard to the communication from the Commission on "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion" (COM (2010) 578),
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the conclusions of the European Council (October 29th/30th, 2009) referring to the need to reduce emissions of at least 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of February 4th, 2011 which reconfirmed this need,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)
- having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee from 14 July 2010 on "How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from the 2007-2013 cycle" (ECO/258),
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed greatlyis a modern and a long-term policy in favour of regional development of all regions, which contributes to the overall EU objectives; whereas this policy has contributed greatly to facilitate sustainable development and to the increased productivity achieved by all regions of the Union during the previous and current funding periods; whereas it is striking that ex-post evaluation has also shown a significant narrowing of the economic, social and regional divide; whereas these developments do not always have equally positive effects on social security and on inveare partly not consistment inwith the protection of the environmentEU goals for climate protection and preservation of biodiversity,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas gearing the Structural Funds to the Lisbon Strategy objectives has proved effective, as is evident from the impressive commitment rates for the Convergence and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, although it is regrettable that only 20% of projects under the heading of Territorial Cooperation accord with the Lisbon aimEuropean objectives leads to an added- value for the regions; whereas further concentration of funds in more developed regions on a limited number of objectives will only deliver results if a bottom-up approach ensures sufficient flexibility for tailor-made regional solutions to achieve targets,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the partial failure of the Lisbon Strategy is due not to the inadequate implementation of cohesion policy but rather to the lack of multi-level governance and of ownership of this strategy by the regional and local level, the effects of the financial crisis, imperfect implementation of the single market, slack budgetary discipline and inadequate macroeconomic framework conditions in individual Member States; whereas cohesion policy is not a mere delivery instrument of the EU 2020 Strategy but a permanent EU Treaty objective,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the existing system of cohesion and structural policy objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), combined with a multi-level governance approach, horizontal objectives and security to plan on the basis of reliable funding and an agreed time frame (seven years), has basically proved its worth, but whereas there have been considerable delays in programme planning as a result of protracted financial and legislative negotiations,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms, as well as specific structural problems and, geographical disadvantages and challenges which European regions are facing and which are linked to Cohesion Policy (globalisation, demography, climate change, energy, social inclusion and poverty), and it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the values and principles of the European Union as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon (including democracy, human rights, solidarity, equality between women and men and social justice) should set the framework for cohesion policy and be reflected in programming and evaluation,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental and climate protection, resource management, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been realised without the European stimulus;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
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 strengthened, therefore the European Commission should ensure that the multi-level governance principle will be implemented systematically and that local and regional authorities will be involved in preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; recognises that principles such as bottom-up approach, public participation and integrated approach contribute to a successful implementation of Cohesion Policy; calls for the partnership principle to be made legally binding and further strengthened also through appropriate funding under technical assistance, capacity building of the partners and an upgrade in the context of simplification; calls for clear guidance and effective controls by the Commission to assure full compliance with the binding requirements of the partnership principle which necessarily involves local and regional authorities and, in accordance with the Treaty, social partners, environmental partners and those responsible for gender mainstreaming;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that gender mainstreaming is a horizontal principle of all structural funds and investments, therefore its implementation is a prerequisite of future funding and has to be fixed in the programme documents;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening outreducing differences between regions' levels of development and on integrated sustainable development;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Recognises the specific needs of regions particularly disadvantaged in their development by virtue of demographic change; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of that type of region;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the Union will be able to hold its own in the face of global competition only if its cohesion policy can tapcan only meet the challenges of the double crisis - the economic crisis and the climate crisis - if economic, social and territorial cohesion is achieved in all regions of the EU; emphasises that cohesion policy has to make use of the development potential of all the regions in response to the challenand only in that way it can significantly contribute to achieve the targets of the EU 2020 strategy;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) cohesion and points out that the Lisbon Treaty added the objective of territorial cohesion to those of economic and social cohesion; affirms that this aim remains indissociable from the challenges of economic and social cohesion and strengthens the European added-value of cohesion policy;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the need for a more territorialised and integrated approach to unleash development potential on subregional and local level, to improve synergies and to address marginalised communities; calls for a common framework for local development approaches which achieves complementarities among the existing funds by allowing the local action groups to draw down funds from multiple sources with a territorial perspective and make better use of global grants;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whetherRecognises that specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitanurban areas, urban-rural partnership regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; is particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence of political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls insteadcalls for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter-governmental levelsmong the Member States, regions and municipalities concerned;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
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 local development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural linksfostering polycentric development and upgrading of urban-rural links in the respect of the regional strategy and taking into account the specificities of periurban areas; underlines that cross-sectoral local actions groups of public authorities, civil society and private enterprises have the knowledge and potential to develop an integrated strategy for local services, markets, employment opportunities and local solutions for social inclusion and thus have to be involved;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Rejects the use of quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for urban development, for the countryside or otherwise according to categorisation on the basis of population density or territorial functioncognises that the national allocation for ESF can only be examined ex-post; might consider to review this approach for future programming; also regards as questionable the requirement to specify already at operational programme level which urban and other areas are to be eligible for support, and calls for the Member States and regions to be allowed to organise competitive selection procedures in this respect as well;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Considers that urban problems, whether related to environmental and living conditions degradation, social exclusion, or the lack of economic attractiveness, deserve a particular response and a direct involvement of the level of governments directly concerned; Underlines that the bottom-up approach also has to apply for actions focused on deprived areas in order to reduce disparities, tackle poverty and discriminations within a community, and desegregate deprived neighbourhoods; Recommends that local actors will be given more responsibility to prepare and implement the necessary measures with particular focus on actions in the field of energy efficiency in housing and construction and sustainable urban mobility;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds must be more strongly oriented towards the educational and socio-political challenges of the EU 2020 strategy; takes the view, however, that across-the-board ‘Europeanisation’ of the relevant policy areas would be a doomed endeavour purely on financial grounds; calls, therefore, for the further development of approaches that could serve as models, while retaining existing national and regional competences including social inclusion and accessibility of goods and services; asks Member States to use the potentials and synergies of structural funds in order to realise the reforms that are necessary to meet the goals of the EU 2020 strategy;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Sees scope under the Structural Funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructureIs convinced that the energy share in the next period of cohesion policy programming should increase; believes that new and renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency and energy saving policies should remain key priorities of Cohesion policy interventions; Sees scope under the Structural Funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure in order to allow for integration of renewable energies and the establishing of decentralised, smart energy grids, although such support must be available only in regions where political or geographical constraints significantly hamper the ability of the market to meet energy-supply needs; calls, too, for support from the Structural Funds to be made contingent in all cases on the adoption of a commercial approach and of compliance with the principle of multi- level governance;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesidevelopment as long and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions; suggests that ‘s they are coherent with the concept of sustainability and cohesion; Calls for a review of financing transport infrastructure, to be oriented towards EU targets on climate change, oil dependency and accidents reduction, environmental protection legislation and a ceiling for road infrastructure to be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support infixed at a maximum of 20% of total co-funding for transport infrastructure; Emphasises to focus on existing and cross-border rail connections with the third objective of European Territorial Cooperationpriority for new Member States;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environmentsustainable development, energy, environment, climate protection, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to cohesion and structural policy; takes the view that the EU 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the system of three objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), which has proved its effectiveness;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that the development of basic infrastructure and support for conventional forms of energy should also be regarded as compatible with EU 2020, because only when they have competitive transport, energy and communications networks and waste-disposal infrastructure will the convergence regions be in a position Underlines the urgent need to modernise and upgrade the European energy infrastructure, to develop smart grids and build interconnections which are necessary for realising the internal energy market, enhancing security of supply, and to meet energy and climate targets; takes the view that substantial investments could be needed in this field and the Cohesion policy funding is an appropriate to contribute matching these needs; recalls the need to accurately ascertain infrastructure requirements and avoid lock-in to surplus capacity by taking the cost-effective energy efficiency potential fully into accountribute to achieving the EU 2020 objectives – and that is precisely why the weaker and neediest regions must be given some leeway to interpret those ob; emphasises the need to maximise the impact of European funding and the opportunity offered by innovative financial instruments to funding key European priority clean energy infrastructure projectives;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in theshould remain one of the main criteria for determining the eligibility for regional policy assistance but has to be complemented by other indicators for identification of the most vulnerable regions; emphasises that GDP alone does not have the capacity to provide a comprehensive picture of regional development disregarding relevant social factors such as income disparities and unemployment; suggests to retain the threshold for definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the; proposes a modulation between 50% and 75% of co-financing from EU-funds according to the region's distance to EU average); points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the Convergence objective (convergence regions); and also an phasing-in for regions particularly affected by economic crises and other social-economic problems like demographic change; therefore supports the Commission's proposal for an intermediate category of eligibility above 75% of the EU average of GDP and below that average; Underlines the necessity of a differentiated approach within this category concerning the co- financing rate and the number of spending priorities which have to be fulfilled; Underlines the character of the intermediate region as transitional arrangement and calls on the Commission to ensure a degressive approach for all regions within this category taking also into account the necessity of complementing GDP by social criteria to provide information about the real socio- economic situation;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgradedsupports the proposal of the Commission for intervention of structural funds in “more developed regions”, the former Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach to achieve results on a limited number of EU priorities, such as support for SMEs, green innovations, climate mitigation, local economies, access to labour market, education and training, social inclusion including active integration policy, access to services of general interest, biodiversity and green infrastructure, sustainable mobility, energy efficiency, renewable energies and energy supply including smart, decentralised energy infrastructure, resource efficiency (in particular waste and water), cultural heritage and diversity; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters for transformation towards a sustainable economy and competition for funding needs to be developed further;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls to ensure that more developed regions are able to modernise their social and economic capital and to address specific pockets of deprivation and of lack of economic development;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PE between the 75% and 90% rates would be at odds with the tried and tested principles of EU cohesion policy (to support the weakest and pool the inherent potential of the wealthier regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate category;deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) represent the strongest European added-value and thus need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans- national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regions for the in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line wigration of the European Union and strengthening of cohesion beyond national borders; stresses the importance of the closures of gaps in sustainable modes of infrastructure for the achievement of the European priorities – and with cross- border infrastructure, and calls for aU 2020 goals; calls for a co-financing rate of all funds in all programmes which is by 10 percentage points higher as promotional bonus for territorial corrhespionding increase in funding for all border regions due to additional costs of complex decision-making procedures for multi- lateral projects; stresses the added-value of EGTCs and supports their development;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continue to foster social integration, economic growth and employment; regards the ESF as the Union's most important labour-market and employment-policy tool; attaches particular importance to developing skills and mobility, enhancing equality of opportunity between the sexes, integrating people who are disadvantaged and supporting SME to remain under the umbrella of cohesion policy; indicates its special role as most important instrument for labour-market and employment policies and for social cohesion of all regions, especially due to its contribution to social integration and promotion of employment, education, training and life long learning, transformation towards sustainable economies and combating poverty; underlines that this can not be achieved by public authorities alone, but that especially non-public actors including companies of the social economy play a central role in the report on social integration; asks for a greater account of a territorial approach in order to increase effectiveness and visibility of its interventions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to place-based integrated development planning – to be facilitated;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered, and calls for binding targets to be set for the Member States and the regions in order to establish more standardised arrangements for administering the EU Structural Funds and the regionally oriented rural development programmes;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for investment priorities geared to the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and the achievement of other cohesion policy and structural policy objectives to be set at this stage; considers that the allocation of responsibilities between the various levels involved needs to be clarified, and calls for national and/or regional and local competences to be retained in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for a clear commitment for an appropriate involvement of partners in the development and investment contracts;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionregional and local authorities in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the regulations governing the Structural Funds; underlines the necessity of participation of regional and local authorities through a detailed and legally binding definition of the partnership principle including specific criteria to guarantee that partners can effectively participate in all stages of programming; points out that regional and local authorities and not only the central government must be included in the Development and Investment Contracts (DIC); considers that only the agreement of all partners concerned provide the DIC a broad and sustainable basis;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation, infrastructure and resource management and transformation towards a sustainable economy, sustainable and climate- resilient infrastructure and climate protection, resource management and biodiversity, climate protection and energy efficiency and to be tailored in each case to regions' specific needs; stresses that it must be possible to suggest and pursue additional priorities on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for suggested priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverty;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment, capacity building measures, guidance and simple and innovative forms available to the relevant administrative authorities including interlocutory bodies to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery; underlines the impact of successful partnership for reducing red tape of beneficiaries and that this should go hand in hand with training and empowering of “actors of change”; in this context underlines the importance of exchange of best practise among the regions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 405 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Stresses that gender responsive budgeting will make EU spending more effective; invites the European Commission to propose a procedure for introducing gender budgeting methods in the design and management of structural fund programmes beyond 2013 and to increase the gender competence of administrations on all relevant levels by promoting capacity building;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 411 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a stronger focus on results, to be achieved through the ex-ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that such indicators must be few in number, that they must all be clearly defined, measurable and related directly to the impact of the funding, and that they should be established by agreement with the regions/Member States; recommends to improve project selection while building on experience gained in the regions/Member States also by introducing support tools such as NECATER that was developed by the French government and aims at reducing carbon emissions of projects and improving local and regional carbon accounting;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 415 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Considers that transparency in respect of cohesion policy and its programming cycle, allocation of expenditure and access to information for potential beneficiaries of the Structural Funds are key prerequisites for achieving the overall objectives of cohesion policy, and that transparency should therefore be introduced as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes in the next funding period; underlines that the disclosure of the list of beneficiaries should be continued, notably online, as it is an efficient tool to improve transparency;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 418 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Calls for the indicators to concentrate on areas of impact with European added value (increases in productivity, research, transport services, regional growth and relevant environmental improvements); calls for quantitative targets to be eschewed when measuring progress in areas where responsibility rests largely with national authorities (i.e. on educational standards, poverty thresholds and integration)taking also into account the monitoring progress for EU 2020; calls for quantitative targets to be calculated cautiously and as potential contribution to achieve quantifiable targets based on the financial contribution by structural funds and for assessment, instead, of projects' potential as models and of the degree of innovation they display;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 428 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a review of the percentage ceiling for EU funding – which should take more account of regional development levels, European added value and the types of measure funded and should be raised or lowered accordinglin a differentiated way;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 435 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 75%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attract; calls for it to be made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market-oriented credit options to cover their share of project financingSupports the Commission in its proposals to lower the co-financing rate; Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 75%, as it contributes to a thorough examination and better performance of projects; considers the opening of different options for co-financing desirable;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 441 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Supports the proposal of the Commissions to establish a performance reserve, which is to be spent on achieving particular results on the agreed priorities in the development and investment contract (DIC) calculated as potential contribution to achieve quantifiable results which are linked to EU targets; after approval in the midterm review the Commission will evaluate and reward the money to all those regions who have well met the targets as fixed in the OPs or even overachieved the priorities foreseen in the OPs; underlines that the DIC needs to define a correction mechanism in case of unexpected crisis which might impede to meet the targets;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 448 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Calls, in the case of direct subsidies to undertakings, for it to be recognised that cohesion policy funding, rather than influencing decisions by companies – and particularly bigger companies – to open a plant in a given location, tends to be pocketed by companies which have already taken such decisions (deadweight effect), and calls, therefore, for support for undertakings to focus on investment in research and development or for it to be provided, in more cases, indirectly through infrastructure financing; also calls for clear provisions to be included in the general regulation governing the Structural Funds ruling out EU support for the relocation of undertakings within the Union also by fixing the durability of operations at 10 years, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investments including the exclusion of large enterprises from direct subsidies;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 455 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Recognises the leverage effect of new financial instruments and their potential to mobilise investment, supports increased financing from credit in principle, and calls for the use of revolving financial instruments to be extended to morthose areas eligible for funding (including research and infrastructure)which prove to be appropriate; calls for procedures to be simplified to that end and for a greater degree of legal certainty throughout the entire funding period; takes the view that at the end of a funding period, at the latest, responsibility for how the funds are spent should transfer to national level or project level;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 465 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Considers that the EIB must assume a stronger role in the financing of TEN infrastructure; calls for more emphasis to be placed on self-suppclimate friendly sustainable European transport systems infrastructure; calls for more caution when calculating the value-for- money for the public sectort ing public- private partnerships and to ensure democratic scrutiny; considers, as a matter of principle, that the European Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard for ensuring transparency including transparency on public budgetary burdens, and in relation to decision- making and supervision;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 480 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget as currently structured, underpinned by the regulations governing the various funds, has proved effective in the implementation of cohesion and structural policy in particular,taking into account the proposals of the Commission for harmonisation of rules for all funds available for regional development; underlines that this should not increase the burden for beneficiaries, particularly not for those, who have a small structure and limited capacity; calls on the Commission to keep the specific character of the different structural funds and changes should therefore be made only where procedures have not worked or where the arrangements are at odds with the Financial Regulation; calls for the utmost caution to be exercised when making even the most minor adjustment to established, tried and tested structures;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 487 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisivone policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy ; strategy and therefore calls for it to be treated at least as generously in budgetary terms it has been as in the current planning periodthat a successful and strengthened cohesion policy needs that the amounts allocated to it in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period; reiterates, in this context, its strong request to ensure that, in the next MFF, the unspent or decommitted resources of cohesion funds remain in the cohesion budget and not be returned to the Member States;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
51. Calls, in respect of Member States that are falling significantly short of the EU stability criteria requirements and also have a poor record on the use of monies from thehave a poor record on the use of monies from the Structural Funds or that violated EU law in implementation of Structural Funds, for a proposal for the automatic application of more stringent rules in order to monitor the use of such monies in accordance with the law and the relevant objectives;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 514 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies; envisages linkage between, on the one hand, successful accreditation and a reduction in the error rate and, on the other, entitlement to simplified and less frequent reporting; proposes in order to prevent mismanagement of structural funds that the effective functioning of the management and control systems should be verified and in return the number of on-the-spot audits by the Commission be increased; recommends to introduce a "Cohesion Ombuds Centre" by the Commission for an additional source of information on both best practice and possible misuse of funds;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 554 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
57. Emphasises the importance in terms of cohesion policy of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) promoting cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU; sees infrastructure (transport and energy) links with neighbouring countries as having particularly positive effects on the European border regions; calls for ENPI funding to focus more closely on strategic needs in relation to energy and to transport infrastructure; underlines the role that macroregions can play in this context;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 561 #
Motion for a resolution
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 reiterates its call for graduated cohesion policy arrangements for large candidate countries such as Turkey; __________________ 11. Croatia, which are currently in accession negotiations, receive support during the 2007-2013 programming period at the same average per capita level as the new Member States (the EU 12), the total financial requirement would be EUR 132.5 billion, of which Turkey's share would be EUR 124.9 billion (94.3%) and Croatia's 7.6 billion (5.7%). If support were given at a rate equivalent to the average (2006) level of EU transfers to the new Member States as a proportion of GDP, the additional financial requirement would total EUR 109.1 billion, of which Turkey's share would be EUR 99.8 billion and Croatia's EUR 9.3 billion. (Untiedt, G. (2011) Das Volumen und die Verteilung der EU-Strukturfondsmittel für die Förderperiode von 2007 bis 2013 unter Berücksichtigung der Türkei und Kroatiens, opinion of Professor G. Untiedt, GEFRA GbR, commissioned by Dr Markus Pieper, MEP).deleted On the assumption that Turkey and
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI