Activities of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2013/2095(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on EU Member States preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy Programming period PDF (215 KB) DOC (109 KB)
Amendments (15)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Ensuring an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy Programming period
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adopted as soon as possibleby the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible after the closure of the negotiations on the sectoral dossiers so that the budget for cCohesion pPolicy is set and programmes can start on time;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes also that in addition to an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy programming period, ensuring the quality of PAs and OPs must be of paramount importance to make sure that funds are used to their full potential in the long term;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced political pressures and changes of government that could impede the preparations for the next programming period; highlights the fact that, in cases like these, the advantages of having systems in place that ensure that all administrative work continues regardless of changes in governments are vital to the continued preparations;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potHighlights that Member States with a high number of OPs at regional level could be slower in their preparations due to potential added bureaucracy; in this instance, stronger control is required by the centirally slower government during their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy and requires stronger control by the central government for the PAs in that Member State; reiterates that the responsibility for the content and administration of OPs should lie with the regional level administration, in line with settlements in that Member State;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recognises however that a reduction inof OPs at regional level would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay at the outset due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing the OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes that the Commission has received considerable interest in multi- fund programmes, with many Member States planning to have at least one or more multi-fund programmes; highlights that the risks associated with the multi- fund approach in the past included increased administrative burden and delay, which comes from having a number of different Commission Directorates General involved with different approaches in each DG; notes also that the impact of any problems or delays could be multiplied two or three fold with multi-fund programmes;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) and Joint Action Plans (JAPs); understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that evidence shows that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Recognises Joint Action PlanAPs as a positive step towards results-based management, in line with one of the overarching aims of cohesion policy post 2013;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Welcomes the emphasis on simplification in the CPR; notes, however that in reality simplification could be difficult to achieve due to the differences that remain between the funds introduced by the fund specific regulations; notes specifically in terms of administration and management, where procedures are not fully standardised and there remains a big difference between funds;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recognises that e-cohesion can be vital to reducing bottlenecks and ensuring simplification, and welcomes the reference by some Member States to its use; believes that this could also make a significant contribution to the preparedness ofations for future funding programmes;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Highlights the fact that this Member State combined that these ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top- down’ approaches to ensure that national strategies addressing the social and economic situation were included alongside extensive involvement at regional and local level; welcomes this effective way of guaranteeing that strategic requirements are met while at the same time engaging relevant stakeholders as far as possible in preparations;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Urges a quick agreement to be reached on the legal framework for cohesion policy alongside the conclusion of the CPR negotiations and the MFF;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Highlights the Commission's call for Member States and regions to strive to ensure that PAs and OPs prepared are of the highest possible quality; notes that this will help lead to generating good quality project proposals targeted towards specific objectives to ensure that EU funding has the greatest possible impact;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends that Member States that are experiencsuffering severe delays be provided with additional support by the Commissionshould rigorously follow the recommendations issued by the Commission in the form of the individual Position Papers in autumn 2012 and also their subsequent dialogue with the Commission; highlights that the Commission should increase its support to ensure that theirse Member States' PAs and OPs are agreed as soon as possible; notes therefore that reviewing Member States' progress during the preparation stages would help reduce delays; notes also that during the implementation phase the Commission could seek to develop more measures to assist struggling Member States;