61 Amendments of Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed greatly to the increased productivity achieved by all regionsis a key pillar of the process of European integration, and the EU’s main tool for promoting the harmonious development of the Union as a whole, particularly by reducing disparities between the different levels of development of the regions, which has contributed greatly to growth and to the prosperity of the Union during the previous and current funding periods; whereas it is striking that ex- post evaluation has also shown athat despite its achievements and the significant narrowing of the economic, social and regional divide; whereas these developments have equally positive effects on social security and on investment in the protection of the environment and social divide, there are still major economic, social and territorial disparities between regions,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities, such as in access to, since these are an effective way to combat regional disparities and foster cooperation in the areas that they cover, especially employment and, education, or public services;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the ecohesion and structural policies have proved flexible in crisis situations andnomic and financial crisis has accentuated the need for a cohesion policy that is capable of providing a flexible response to the needs of the regions, especially those that have fallen behind; whereas, at this time of crisis, this European policy haves made a defining contribution to various national recovery and training programmes,
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas gearing the structural funds to the Lisbon Strategy objectives has proved effective, as is evident from the impressive commitment rates forcohesion policy should continue to support growth and competitiveness, as it is doing during the current period in which a high percentage of structural fund appropriations have been pledged to investments geared to the Lisbon Strategy objectives in the Convergence and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, aleven though it is regrettable that only 20% of projects under the heading of Territorial Cooperation accord, during the current period, with the Lisbon aims,
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
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 effects of the financial crisis, imperfect implementation of the single market, slack budgetary discipline and inadequate macroeconomic framework conditions in individual Member States,
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the incidence of errors and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably, structural policy non, but has not been completheless remains an area with a continuing poor record in this respect, andy eliminated because some Member States still lack effective machinery for counterrrecting the misuse of fundingse errors and recovering money wrongly paid out,
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion; takes the view that this Structural Fund needs to be included in the common strategic framework, without, however, altering its specific operating rules and provisions; calls on the Commission to strengthen the role of the ESF and raise its profile;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
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 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 in the Community decision- making process,
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support forntensify ESF action aimed at promoting integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value; deems such added value to be achieved where EU projects bring about a lasting and measurable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of a disadvantaged region and such improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus,Emphasises the indisputable European added value of cohesion policy programmes; deems such added value to be achieved where clear additional benefits are obtained through European actions over those obtained through measures adopted by each Member State individually, thus contributing to the achievement of agreed policy targets more effectively and reducing national expenditure; points out that in order to achieve greater European added value, resources should be focused on areas where they can be of most benefit and that the subsidiarity and proportionality principles are the basic criteria used in determining this;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-cohesion policy funding adds European value by helping to leverage public and private investment towards European objecprioritives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental protection, resource management, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross-border development and thisand objectives, producing results on a European scale that would not have been realisachieved withrout the European stimulusgh projects supported only at national, regional or local level;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that better harmoniscoordination between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of employing cross-financing arrangements combining the two funds;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6bis. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that information about access to the European Social Fund is disseminated to more useful effect among the target groups and that outcomes are publicised more widely;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6α. Stresses that, in ensuring the maximum effectiveness of cohesion policy, both in terms of development and strengthening social cohesion, the level of co-funding should be reviewed so that it better reflects the level of development of action plans and the specific characteristics of beneficiaries;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantagessset of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for; calls also for the strengthening of thise partnership principle to be further strengthenedwith regional and local actors and for more engagement of the economic and social partners involved in cohesion policy;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Believes that, in strengthening the social effectiveness of cohesion policy, it is necessary to strengthen the representation of local and regional stakeholders and social partners in both the design and implementation of cohesion policy at national level and encourages Member States to work to this end;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7bis. Calls for the open method of coordination to be strengthened and for better cooperation and exchanges of information to be established among national, regional, and local authorities where cohesion policy is concerned;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 as a result of the economic and financial crisis – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening outreducing differences between regions’ levels of development; convergence and development, and should be extended to all territories of the Union, being applied with the flexibility required to tailor it to the socioeconomic realities of each;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantagedcertain regions by virtue of their geodemographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its; to this end, calls for special forms of preference to coparticular attention to be paid to island, mountainue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned and sparsely populated regions in the strategic priorities; calls also for studies into the Tpreaty on the Funcservation or creationing of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northcertain preferences awarded to the outernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-and the land and sea border regions);
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and the number of otherany obstacles to achievmaking the EU’s objectives for growth and job creation more difficult to achieve.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the Union will be able to hold its ownbe competitive in the face of global competition only if its cohesion policy can tap the development potential of all the regions in response to the challenges of the EU 2020 strategyis sufficiently flexible for the regions to be able to adapt it to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in accordance with their own local needs, and are thus capable of fully exploiting their development potential;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) cohespromoting balanced development throughout the Union 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;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees the possibility of 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 protectionbeing an effective tool for promoting cooperation between members of the macroregion in the functional areas they define and improving cooperation between the different levels of governance, whilst also implementing the policy goals of the Union in line with the Europe 2020 strategy; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU structural funds;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; is particularly awa as there, 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 instead for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter-governmental levels a risk they may overlap with other existing areas of cooperation or structures;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities as motors for development in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 strategy objectives; calls, which makes it essential to involve them in the design of future cohesion policy; calls for the urban dimension to cohesion policy to be strengthened from the outset and when it is implemented, and for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of integrated development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RejectQuestions the usefulness 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 function; also regards as questionable the requirement to specifydefine already at operational programme level which urbanregions 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;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that structural and cohesion policy must not be biased towards specific types of region; calls for urban-rural partnerships to be seen in their broader socio-economic contextdiscretionary in favouring specific types of region;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must be more strongly oriented towardsseek to tackle the educational and socio-al political challengcy objectives 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;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. CallAsks, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debateachievement of the 20/20/20 objectives, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of renewables; in that connection, supports the plans for decentralised energy strategies involving effective energy storage technologies in the regions;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees scope under the structural funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure, 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 contingentlinked in all cases ton the adoption of a commercial approach and of compliance withstrengthening of the internal energy market and the security of supply, as well as to the principle of multi- level governance in resource management;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion 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 ‘infrastructure’ be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support in connection with the third objective of European Territorial Cooperationcalls also for particular attention to be paid to outlying and island areas;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to the cohesion and structural policiesy; 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;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. States that the EU 2020 strategy is a key benchmark for the future of Europe and, ultimately, for European Union policies, in that it aims to consolidate the foundations of knowledge-based economic growth that is environmentally friendly and geared to social integration; affirms in this context that cohesion policy should play a key role in supporting the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as thea key criterion infor the 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 EU average)eligibility of cohesion regions and countries, without prejudice to the necessity and desirability of introducing additional indicators that are in line with the complexity of the principle of territorial cohesion; points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind; stresses that the neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share –of resources that is commensurate with the seriousness of their development problems – of the funding under Objective 1 (Convergence);
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum supporregions that exit the convergence objective to be guaranteed appropriate treatment, by retaining transitional mechanisms that allow their balanced development uander the Convergence objective (convergence regions) avoid the economic shock caused by a sudden change in aid received;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cuttingthematic approach, to be upgraded; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed furtherin these regions needs to be developed further; points out in this context that strategies should be designed with sufficient flexibility to be able to cope with the problems and particularities of each individual region;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
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, in order to meet their development needs, it is necessary to introduce a new intermediate category of regions that have exceeded the eligibility threshold for the convergence objective but have not yet reached full competitiveness; asks that attention also be given to the special situation of regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate categoryhat cease to be covered by the convergence objective for the first time;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (the European Territorial Cooperation) objective 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 fundsfunds earmarked for this purpose to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regionis 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;
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance and jeopardise the regions’ contribution to the achievement of the EU 2020 objectivesEuropean cohesion policy;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimcoordination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate provision for its functions be included in the Social Fund; calls for consideration of whether a merger of the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Development Fund would be compatible with the European Treaties; points out that, as a rule, monies from the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund are spent on the same types of project so as to avoid duplication;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
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 competences to be retained in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regions in drawing up developall levels of government involved in the negotiation of development and investment partnerships, as well as ind operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the structural fund regulations;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
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 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 suggestenvisaged priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverty;
Amendment 397 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for theExpresses doubts concerning the benefits of possibly imposing conditions on funding under development investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas di; points out that enhanced regional policy cross-compliance is only possible in the context of suitable governance and therefore inherecntly related to cohesion policy; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering proced, however, to assess the results in greater detail; stresses that administrative and regulatory simplification would make it possible to use the resources, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform more efficiently and reduce irregularities; rejects any proposal requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform and therefore firmly opposes all macro-economic cross-compliance; points out, moreover, that no common policy is subject to such requirements;
Amendment 413 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a stronger focus on results, to be achieved throughwhile taking the view that the ex- ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that will encourage efforts to secure recognition of their credentials rather than focusing on effective results; stresses that, if they are established, 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;
Amendment 419 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Calls for theany existing indicators to concentrate on areas of impact wichievement of the European added value (increases in productivity, research, transport services, regional growth and relevant environmental improvements); calls for quantitative targets to be escheweda 2020 strategy objectives; calls for the necessary degree of flexibility and proportionality when measuring progress in areas where responsibility rests largely with national authorities (i.e. on educational standards, poverty thresholds and integration)or regional authorities and for assessment, instead, of projects’ potential as models and of the degree of innovation they display ;
Amendment 433 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
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 financing;
Amendment 443 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
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 undertakingsboth in the case of bigger companies and SMEs for it to be recognised that it is necessary 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 outanalysing the appropriateness of EU support for the relocation of undertakings within the Union, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investments;
Amendment 451 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
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 ofin principle through revolving financial instruments to be extended to more areas eligible for funding (including research and infrastructure); 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;
Amendment 466 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
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-supporting public-private partnerships; considers, as a matter of principle, that the European Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard for ensuring transparency, and in relation to decision-making and supervision;
Amendment 470 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European structurregional-policy objectives; proposes that the tried and tested approach of competitive procedures should also be applied in respect of global grants;
Amendment 476 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions for funding so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters);
Amendment 481 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget as currently structurednd allocation mechanisms, underpinned by the regulations governing the various funds, has proved effective in the implementation of cohesion and structural policy in particular, 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, so as to avoid increased bureaucracy, malfunctions and uncertainty for national and regional administrative bodies;
Amendment 484 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Regards the integration of the EU 2020 objectives into the existing system of objectives and funds as entirely feasible; rejects any division of the EU budget under the notional headings of ‘smart’, ‘inclusive’ or ‘sustainable’ growthcohesion policy structures as entirely feasible; stresses, however, that under the Lisbon Treaty cohesion policy has been given tasks exceeding the mere application of the new European growth and employment strategy;
Amendment 489 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena forNotes that the cohesion policy to be followed from 2014 is intended to be focused on cross-sectoral implementationachievement of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for it to be treated at least as generously in budgetary terms it has been as in the current planning periods well as fulfilment of its new tasks under the treaty; urges therefore that at least the same percentage of the European budget as in the current planning period continue to be earmarked for this purpose in order to guarantee the success of an enhanced cohesion policy;
Amendment 501 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
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 the 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;
Amendment 518 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
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-stateregional 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;
Amendment 532 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Supports the Commission’s proposal that national authorities should not receive reimbursement until the EU funding has been paid out to the beneficiaries; envisages that this will speed up payment procedures and will be a crucial incentive to carry out stringent national auditing; notes, however, that cashflow problems could potentially arise at Member State or federal-state level and thatNotes that cashflow problems could potentially arise at Member State and regional level in the current crisis and that, regarding the advanced reimbursement of expenditure incurred for this purpose, appropriate hedging arrangements will have to be made;
Amendment 550 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
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 infrastructurerecalls in this context that cooperation with neighbouring countries has positive effects throughout Europe; calls for ENPI funding to focus more closely on strategic needs and calls for the elimination of the current 150 km criterion, which limits the possibility of cooperation between territories situated on either side of EU external borders;