BETA

29 Amendments of Sabine VERHEYEN related to 2011/2035(INI)

Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas European structural policy contributes greatly to overcoming the economic and financial crisis, as it tends to be oriented towards innovation and removing disparities, strongly encouraging the European regions to upgrade infrastructure, increase regional innovation potential and boost sustainable ecological development,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas Europe’s regions together face the challenges of globalisation, demographic change and conserving resources, and whereas the intrinsic potential of all regions should be exploited to boost growth and regional and social cohesion,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
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; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU structural funds; nevertheless, no new instruments, financial resources or implementation structures should be created for these strategies;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Also considers that cohesion policy has a responsibility to do what is needed to fill gaps and remove bottlenecks in a core TEN network of main routes of European significance, particularly in the border regions which have until now been badly neglected in this regard;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E- roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions; suggests that ‘infrastructure’ be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support in connec and outermost regions,; suggests that certain crossborder ‘infrastructure’ shall be considered as priority projects eligible to funds of the objective 1, 2 and 3 calls for a obligatory right to make the first proposal of the regional level for this type of action and equal participation withof the third objective of European Territorial Cooperation; border regions and local authorities in the planning;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Emphasises that investment in innovation and education can promote growth; points out, however, that the relevant infrastructure (transport, broad band internet, energy) and appropriate institutions (a balanced mix of public investment and fiscal policy consolidation with macro-economic measures, e- government services and cross-border learning)must provide effective support;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 240 #
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 complying with the five-step waste hierarchy will the convergence regions be in a position to contribute to achieving the EU 2020 objectives – and that is precisely why the weaker and neediest regions must be given some leeway to interpret those objectives;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross- cutting approach, to be upgraded; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed further; stresses for Objective 2 regions that the proven system of ensuring that more developed regions are able to remove regional structural weaknesses; reduce territorial disparities; contribute to common European objectives; and to meet future challenges, when using structures that can respond flexible to changing circumstance, including, inter alia, innovation clusters and competition for funding, must be retained and developed further; calls for additional instruments for areas highly affected by structural change, which can contribute to the socio-economic and infrastructural improvement;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Fears that the transitional category proposed by the Commission will become a permanent feature and will act to the detriment of other regions; calls, therefore, for the transitional rules to be degressive, subject to a time limit and restricted to regions currently eligible for support under the 'convergence' objective;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) 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 710%; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls for the sake of increasing synergies for a greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) in the cohesion and structural policy creating more effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development, suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to work in a more integrated manner and would increase the effectiveness between these different funds; considers the national / regional development partnerships as an appropriate instrument to bring together the various policies; in this respect underlines the need to set clear objectives and to assess whether the goals were achieved in the Member States;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionsregional and local authorities, in accordance with constitutional and institutional set up of Member States, in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the regulations governing the Structural Funds;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 388 #
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; stresses that this is extremely important for small and medium-sized undertakings in particular; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities 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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 421 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Calls for a limit to be placed on eligibility periods for regions which cannot show any significant improvements in their economic, social and environmental situation after several programming periods, despite maximum support;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 429 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Calls on the Member States and regions to look ahead when programming co-financing appropriations and to boost them by means of financial engineering;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 438 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 750%, 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 financing;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 472 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Rejects quotas or obligations for global grants, however, as they could run counter to the setting of overriding priorities tailored to the regions' needs;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 516 #
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; considers in this connection that simplification and clarification in the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control, are urgently necessary; 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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 519 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Takes the view that in order to improve the effectiveness of the operational programmes, greater use should be made of competitive procedures for project selection within the regions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 520 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 b (new)
53b. Calls for significantly stricter standards for budgetary control and proof of compliance with funding rules to be applied to Member States whose auditing bodies do not pass the accreditation procedures;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 524 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Calls on the Commission to maintain an annual public 'failure scoreboard' of inadequate and/or late execution of reporting and disclosure requirements and of irregularities, abuse and fraud in the use of monies from the cohesion fund; calls for this information to be broken down by Member State and Fund;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 527 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 b (new)
54b. Considers the annual, tested management declarations at the level of the head of the office administering the funds (payment office / administrative authority) to be an appropriate means of strengthening the reporting and control chain and highlights the absolute necessity for these declarations to be accurate in terms of content; calls therefore for a penalty system to apply to false declarations; in addition, maintains the objective of national statements of assurance;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 528 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 c (new)
54c. Calls for annual clearance of accounts procedures to be established for the new programming period that also cover multiannual programmes;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 529 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 d (new)
54d. Considers more efficient e- government solutions (harmonised forms) to be necessary for the entire implementation and monitoring system; calls for exchange of experience between the Member States coordinated by the Commission and for coordinated implementation through groupings of administrative authorities and auditing bodies;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 530 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 e (new)
54e. Considers that the transparency provisions (obligation to disclose the final beneficiary) are a necessary instrument for experts, the public and policy-makers to evaluate the conformity with objectives and the legality with which the structural funds have been used; Calls for the description to be supplied not only in the relevant national language but also in one of the three working languages (English, French or German) and recommends further harmonisation of the information required;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 535 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 a (new)
55a. Regards the Commission’s call for payments to be more closely geared to results as illogical in that results will only be achieved by financing the projects in the first place, is concerned that the monitoring is likely to be highly bureaucratic, but regards as conceivable requirements which make payments contingent on proven consistency between the projects and, say, EU 2020 strategies;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 b (new)
55b. Considers the offsetting of improperly received monies that have not been paid back against current funding pledges to be an effective instrument for disciplining Member States with a poor record;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 538 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 c (new)
55c. Calls for diversification of the penalty mechanisms, including among other aspects a bonus system for those Member States which comply with the implementation requirements, in particular through administrative concessions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 545 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
56. Supports the Commission’s proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically except in the first year of funding and except for cross-border programmes and that derogations from it should be abolished; supports, indeed, the application of an N+3 rule in the case of cross-border programmes, in order to take account of the slower administrative processes resulting from the linguistic and cultural challenges they face; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high- quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI