48 Amendments of Marie-Christine VERGIAT related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed greatly to the increased productivity achieved by all regions of the Union during the previous and current funding periods; whereas it is strikingto the narrowing of the economic, social and regional divide, as shown by thate ex-post evaluation has also shown a 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,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 33 #
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 framets focus on "competitiveness", cost- cutting, dismantling of the welfare state, ever more flexible labour markets, liberalisation of markets, liberalisation of markets in general and its fuelling of a "beggar thy neighbour" policy of Members States; whereas the failure of the Lisbon Strategy is also due to working methods that allow ineffective implementation of this strategy by the Member States, and to weaknesses in the internal market, the lack of fiscal harmonisation, high inflation which continues to depress household budgets when salaries are not in step, and the lack of political will by the Member States and the Commission to pursue the goal of better labour rights and working conditions in individual Member Stoutside Europe and to strive for higher employment rates,
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy in all regions 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 it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty; stresses in this respect that the contribution of cohesion policy to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy must reflect the objectives set out in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the cross-cutting objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon,
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas supporting and developing the convergence regions in the long term has a positive impact on the demand for goods and services on their marketsEuropean economy as a whole and thus has demonstrably beneficial effects on the wealthier EU Member States as well,
Amendment 61 #
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 lasustaing 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,;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. 1. a) (new) Stresses that the European added value of cohesion policy is uncontested, as this policy sustainable growth as well as demonstrating European solidarity, aiming at reducing disparities between the levels of development of European regions, it constitutes a well-established mechanism of delivering growth and jobs and has been one of the Union’s most significant, visible, and successful policies for decades; points out, however, that a modern cohesion policy must undertake a number of reforms, in particular the simplification of policy implementation, and promote synergies with other policies and instruments on the ground;
Amendment 69 #
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-European objectives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental protection, resource management, demographic chsocial cohesion, poverty and unemployment reduction, the maintenance of quality public services, environmental protection, research, economic growth, resource management, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross- border development and this would not have been realised without, which must be ambitiously pursued by the European stimulusUnion;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance and shared management as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for thisaffirms that the partnership principle to be further streand, hence, the involvement of the economic and social partners and other regional and local stakeholders in all phases of Structural Fund support have proved successful in boosting acceptance of the measures and ensuring thened; y are properly targeted; calls for this partnership principle to be mandatory;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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 tap the development potential of all the regions in response to the challenges of the EU 2020 strategy; takes the view that cohesion policy is not subordinated to the EU 2020 Strategy, whereas it contributes to a great extent to the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy objectives. Believes that a sound autonomous cohesion policy is the prerequisite for successful joint action by the EU as it contributes to reducing disparities at regional and local level and allows for a consolidation of strategic goals and local needs with potential on the ground; stresses that the cohesion policy with its horizontal character is contributing to all EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objective dynamism of the regions; calls for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of integrated development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-particularly those making it possible to upgrade and increase synergies and links between cities, their environs and rural linkareas;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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 function; 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 wellin this respect for competitive selection procedures to be managed in as close cooperation as possible with the regions;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Ffundsing 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 approachal policies; emphasises that the role of the ESF in improving workers’ education, ensuring workers' lifelong training and skill enhancement must be strengthened; calls on the Commission to consider all possible policy options for boosting the contribution of the ESF in the context of the future architecture of the structural funds, in order to enhance the social model of the European Union; believes that could stherve as models, while retaining existing national and regional competencre considerable advantages in maintaining the ESF under the basic regulation on general provisions on the funds, but with its own rules;
Amendment 207 #
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 onlfocus as a priority ion 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;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls, in the light of increasing tasks in the field of social inclusion, i.e. the Four Employment Guidelines, the support of the Decent and Good Work principles (as projected by the ILO), the fight against precarious and undeclared work, combating poverty, achieving gender equality and appropriate conditions for the reconciliation of work and private life, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to these challenges;
Amendment 218 #
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 with insistence for the full integration and participation of the Outermost Regions in the Trans-European Transport Network, as well as for priority programs;
Amendment 225 #
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 tocan also be objectives pursued in a different way by the cohesion and structural policies; 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 effectivenessare macro-economic objectives which must be implemented by the Member States and that the cohesion policy must pursue its own strategy given that it is an essential policy complementary to EU 2020;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in 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); points out that supplementary indicators relevant for measuring social cohesion ( like unemployment rates, poverty, etc.) and territorial cohesion and continuity, as well as environmental indicators should applied; 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 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and, appropriate, consolidated, reformed and while needed longer phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the Convergence objective (convergence regions) which ensures that former convergence regions do not face a drastic reduction structural funds' payments that could prejudice their previous efforts for development; thus calls on the Commission to propose a new phasing out arrangement framed with a strategy that would aim in helping former convergence regions to genuinely and successfully mainstream their changeover from "objective 1" to "objective 2", and so to pursue fruitfully their efforts for development;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for maintaining of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), whic through its based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgradedhorizontal nature; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed further;
Amendment 285 #
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 regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate category; nevertheless recalls the necessity to establish a dependable, appropriate, consolidated, reformed, and while needed longer phasing-out arrangement framed with a strategy for areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the convergence objective;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
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 7%; calls on the commission to reserve a part of this increase for projects designed for enhanced synergies of cooperation between regions corresponding to different objectives (between objective 3 and 2 regions, objective 3 and 1 regions, objective 2 and 1 regions) as well as for projects exclusively designed to enhanced cooperation between objectives 1 regions; 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;
Amendment 305 #
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 2020cohesion's policy objectives;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. CNotes that the ESF plays a key role in social inclusion, labour-market and employment policy; calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continue to fosterreinforce social integration, economic growth and employment; regards the ESF as the Union's most important labour-maclusion, to improve employment and job opportunities, to promote the formation of worketrs and employment-policy tool; attaches particular importance to developing skillthe adaptation of workers' skill to the demand of the labour market in a way workers cand mobility, enhancing equality of opportunity between the sexes, be better integrated in the labour market, to promote gender equality, to integratinge people who are disadvantaged and to supporting the development of the social economy as well as of SMEs;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 349 #
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 achievementStresses that it is important to involve regional and local authorities, social partners and NGOs to the greatest extent when determining priorities for cohesion policy; stresses the fact that multi-level governance is one of the key principles of Cohesion Policy and is fundamental to ensuring the quality of other cohesion policy and structural policy objectives to be set at this stage decision making process, strategic planning and implementing the objectives; 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 retaistrengthened in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Supports retention of the operational programmes as the most important tool for implementation of the strategy papers in terms of concrete investment priorities; calls for clear and measurable objectives to be set in this respectcohesion policy;
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Supports the system of thematic priorities that the Commission is proposing; points out that the lower the level of development in a Member State or region, the more wide-ranging the list of priorities there needs to be, taking into account specificgeneral principle of a Community "menu" of broad thematic priorities to replace the current system whereby the Structural Funds are channelled towards restrictive expenditure categories; opposes, however, any excessive restriction of the number of priorities to be chosen in the context of the new national Development and Investment Partnership Contracts and operational programmes, so that local and regional authorities have sufficient leeway to implement the Europe 2020 objectives at regional dlevelopment needs;
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in for the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to coverlist of priorities in the fields of 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, such as energy, education and training and combating poverty, 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;
Amendment 394 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under 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 directly 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 procedures, 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 reformStrongly encourages regional and local authorities to ensure the highest performance of their administrative and institutional capacity as well as to develop appropriate financial and human resources to cope with the complexity of EU funded projects, mainly in terms of administrative burden; stresses the need for appropriate levels of financing to be ensured in order to properly enable regional and local authorities to take part in major projects financed through Structural Funds;
Amendment 410 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. WelcomeSupports 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 Stateto move towards a more results-oriented approach by using clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators agreed in advance in line with the specific objectives of each region, rejects an assessment of performance solely in terms of progress towards Europe 2020 targets; underlines that progress has been made here in the 2007-2013 programming period with the inclusion of ex-ante, ongoing and ex-post evaluations;
Amendment 417 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Calls for the indicators to concentrate Endorses the use of a limited number of common indicators, linked to the economic, social and territorial cohesion tareas 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 integratgets, such as employment, social inclusion, reduction of richness disparities, research, innovation, SSGI quality and universality, transport services, regional growth, improvement in terms of environmental management, as well as the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, to enable the Commission to conduct a comprehensive and continuous evaluation throughout the programming period, whereas most of indicators should be established at regional level taking into account the specific nature of each region) and for assessment, instead, of projects' potential as models and ofthe priorities set; the indicators must reflect how necessary any proposed approach is for the dregree of innovation they displayion's development;
Amendment 424 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a reviewmaintenance 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 accordingly;
Amendment 430 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of suppalls fort 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 financingaintaining the current maximum level of support;
Amendment 444 #
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 fosters regional development and job creation; calls, therefore, for, on the one hand, 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, given that such financing directly helps to create jobs in the undertakings to which it is provided, and, on the other hand, 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, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investmentsmaking funding conditional on undertakings not relocating or introducing redundancy plans and on them meeting demanding environmental standards, failing which they would be required to repay the funding received;
Amendment 456 #
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 of 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 479 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth 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 thesocial crises, environmental crises, economic or financial crisies, the energy crisies or natural disasters);
Amendment 483 #
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 feaclearly not possible; rejects any division of the EU budget under the notional headings of ‘smart’, ‘inclusive’ or ‘sustainable’ growthattempt to subordinate cohesion policy to the EU 2020 strategy, which is a macro-economic strategy coming first and foremost under the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission and dependent on their will; considers it inappropriate to expect the regions and cohesion policy to bear the consequences of the Commission’s and the Member States’ organisational and coordinating failings as regards implementation of the EU 2020 strategy; points out that the structural and cohesion policies were introduced with a view to ensuring the harmonious development of Europe’s regions, not as policies intended to help implement the Lisbon strategy or the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 488 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for it to be treated at least as generously in budgetary terms it has beenfor achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion; therefore calls for it to receive higher budget appropriations as in the current planning period;
Amendment 497 #
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; Rejects the provisions on macroeconomic conditionality i.e. withholding Structural Funds available to regions and cities for errors and shortcomings of their national governments or if their national governments do not respect the stability and growth pact; underlines that there is a danger that financial sanctions and incentives linked to the Stability and Growth Pact, aimed at ensuring compliance with macroeconomic conditions, will primarily penalise local and regional authorities that are not responsible for the failure of Member States to fulfil their obligations in this area;
Amendment 507 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities or entities that will assume exclusive responsibility for the proper administration of monies from the structural funds;
Amendment 543 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
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 that derogations from it should be abolished; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high-quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;
Amendment 552 #
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 infrastructure; urges the Commission to open the European wider neighbourhood policy up to the outermost regions, as was intended prior to the policy’s introduction, so that those regions are not denied the opportunity to take advantage of the ENPI that is afforded to other European regions;
Amendment 557 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Stresses, too, the relevance in terms of cohesion policy of the EU enlargement process, as part of which the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) helps the candidate countries to make substantive and organisational preparation for implementing cohesion policy; considers, furthermore, that the IPA – with particular reference to the sending of Commission experts – should apply to OCTs making the transition to outermost region status;
Amendment 562 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
Amendment 565 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – footnote
Paragraph 60 – footnote
Amendment 569 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and, the Commission and the Presidents of EU Regions and Landers.