42 Amendments of Sophie AUCONIE related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fifth Cohesion Report’, adopted on 1 April 2011,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the purpose of cohesion policy is to foster the development of an innovative and protective Europe of solidarity in the face of the challenges associated with globalisation,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas cohesion policy represents a genuine citizens’ issue, bringing Europe into people’s daily lives and making it tangible and visible across the EU,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the cohesion and structural policies have proved flexible in crisis situations and have made a defining contribution to various national recovery and training programmes, and whereas it is important to maintain this flexibility,
Amendment 31 #
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 for the Convergence and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, although it is regrettable that onlynd whereas 20% of projects under the heading of Territorial Cooperation accord with the Lisbon aims,
Amendment 43 #
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 basicoverally proved its worth, but whereas there have been considerable delays in programme planning as a result of protracted financial and legislative negotiations and substantial changes in the rules applying to cohesion policy,
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas, however, a significant threshold effect exists between regions with comparable levels of development but benefiting from very different levels of aid – growth regions exceeding the threshold of 75% of average per capita GDP for the EU in receipt of more financial support than stagnating regions above that threshold – and whereas this represents a real problem in terms of fairness between Europe’s regions,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms and the geographical disadvantages of certain regions (particularly the outermost regions), as well as specific structural problems and geographical disadvantathe need to adapt to new challenges, and it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
Hb. whereas towns and cities are places of wealth creation, but also places where the most acute economic and social problems are concentrated,
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environmeor demographic situation or specific constraints; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions), and in particular the additional specific allocation granted to the outermost regions under the ERDF;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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; emphasises that ‘territorial cohesion’ is also relevant at the sub-regional level, particularly in urban areas (urban districts facing difficulties, uncontrolled urban sprawl), even within regions considered to be rich;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to shared challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation touch as environmental protection; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU structural funds;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whetherStresses that specific operational programmes for functional geographic, including multi-regional operational programmes, can yield additional benefits by meeting the shared chal lentitges of functional territories such as metropolitan regions or, sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; is particularly aware, in relor mountain regions; considers that, in accordance with the partnership principle, the implementation tof such programmes, of the absence of political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls instead is a shared responsibility which should be preserved; calls for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter-governmental levels;
Amendment 162 #
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 objectives; encourages the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes and stresses the importance of the experiments currently under way; 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-rural links;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Rejects the use ofproliferation of applications for 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 well;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and 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-boardfull ‘Europeanisation’ of the relevant policy areas is not desirable and would be a doomed endeavour purely onfor obvious financial groundreasons; calls, therefore, for the further development of approaches that could serve as models, while retaining existing national and regional competences;
Amendment 222 #
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 Cooperation;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. supports economic development and employment in SMEs and micro- enterprises; therefore requests that the fundamentals of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE), i.e. "Think Small First" and "Only once ", are considered as one of the bases of cohesion policy and considers that these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programs;
Amendment 227 #
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 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 effectivenessarchitecture of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 256 #
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 – commensurate with the seriousness of their development problems – of the funding under Objective 1 (Convergence)the convergence objective;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum support underthe creation of a new intermediate category for regions with per capita GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average, in order to resolve political problems (unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations) and practical problems (difficulty of managing degressive funding) linked to the current phasing-out arrangement; considers that the creation of such a category will be made possible by the fact that a large number of regions have passed the threshold of 75% of the EU average per capita GDP and will thus automatically cease to be covered by the convergence objective; stresses that this change to the architecture of the cohesion policy should neither penalise regions currently benefiting from the Cconvergence objective (convergence regions)and the competitiveness objective, nor lead to an increase in the cohesion policy budget; considers that this new category will make it possible to strengthen the justice and solidarity which are the fundamental principles of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgraded; rejects any cut in funding for regions currently eligible for Objective 2; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed further;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Othe objective 3 (of 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%contribution by the ERDF to this objective to be increased to a level equivalent to 7% of the total budget for cohesion policy; 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 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Considers that EGTCs represent a unique, highly valuable territorial governance instrument which responds to the needs for structured cooperation, and must be promoted as a tool to set up systems of cross-border governance, ensuring the ownership of the different policies at regional and local level;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
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, – with priority being assigned to training which meets local needs –, enhancing equality of opportunity between the sexes and people with disabilities, integrating and socially reintegrating people who are disadvantaged and supporting SMEs and the self-employed;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls for a common strategy framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period; takes the view that the model of a standard regulatory approach (covering administration, eligibility, auditing and reporting rules) must be further strengthened by means of a joint framework regulatDoes not affect the English version;.
Amendment 354 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Calls on States to take strict account of the partnership principle in the future partnership and development contracts which replace the former national strategic framework plans; considers that the quality of this strategic document will derive from compliance with the partnership principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that this multi-level partnership is a reality in the negotiation, drafting and assessment of these future partnership contracts;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
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;
Amendment 369 #
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-ranginglonger the list of priorities there needs to be, taking into account specific regional development needs; stresses the need for this system of thematic priorities to be flexible and negotiable, in order to take account of the variety of regional contexts;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that certain 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; stressNotes that SMEs are the main source of jobs in the EU and a breeding ground for business ideas; stresses that support to SMEs must be continued and strengthened in light of the key role they can play in the implementation of the EU 2020 Strategy stresses that in terms of the flagship innovation Union a broad concept of "innovation" has to be applied while the SME access to finances must still be facilitated, notes 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;
Amendment 399 #
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 State, for Member States to be called upon to implement reforms, 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 reform;
Amendment 412 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
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; considers, however, that all instruments and criteria proposed to measure performance should maintain a qualitative vision of the programmes;
Amendment 440 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 446 #
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 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, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investments;
Amendment 447 #
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 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 supportthe provision of any EU funding for the relocation of undertakings within the Union, and for a substantially lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investments;
Amendment 499 #
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; calls, at the same time, for unnecessary controls to be done away with in those Member States that have a satisfactory fund management system; considers that the ‘contract of confidence’ and ‘single audit’ principles should be implemented wherever possible;
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities that will assume exclusive responsibilityle for the proper administration of monies from the structural funds;
Amendment 525 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Is concerned at the fact that red tape is preventing small companies and organisations from gaining access to structural funding; calls for the relevant rules and technical documentation to be made as clear as possible, and asks the Commission and the Member States to set up technical working parties with a view to identifying appropriate simplification measures;
Amendment 534 #
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-stateregional level and that appropriate hedging arrangements will have to be made;
Amendment 568 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60