BETA

20 Amendments of Maurice PONGA related to 2011/2035(INI)

Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
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,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
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,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
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,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
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,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; and the political debates in the Council and Parliament to be further strengthened with a view to promoting transparency, accountability for all and an evaluation of the effects of cohesion policy;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E- roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions; suggests that ‘infrastructure’ be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support in connec and outermost regions,; suggests that certain crossborder ‘infrastructure’ shall be considered as priority projects eligible to funds of the objective 1, 2 and 3 calls for a obligatory right to make the first proposal of the regional level for this type of action and equal participation withof the third objective of European Territorial Cooperation; border regions and local authorities in the planning;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
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;deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the structural funds to be increased to 7%; calls for the allocation of funding for each territorial cooperation programme to be based on harmonised criteria in order to provide a strategic and integrated response to the needs and specificities of each geographical territory and area concerned; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers that there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networkto increase the coordination of the TEN networks and their subsidies – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated; calls, furthermore, for better synergies between the EDF and the ERDF;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 399 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 499 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 512 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies; envisages linkage between, on the one hand, successful accreditation and a reduction in the error rate and, on the other, entitlement to simplified and less frequent reporting;deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 525 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI