Activities of Georgios STAVRAKAKIS related to 2011/2035(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Commission’s fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy PDF (349 KB) DOC (248 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that common rules on the management, eligibility, auditing and reporting of projects financed by the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund and of projects supporting the economic diversification of rural and fisheries areas under the EAFRD and the EFF would play a key role in simplifying the management of funds, reducing the risk of error and facilitating participation in cohesion policy programmes by smaller stakeholders, as well as easier absorption of available funding;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds,
Amendment 247 #
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 (GDPNI/PE below 90% of the EU average); 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 252 #
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 the competent national and regional authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement foron the Commission to thoroughly analyse the development situation and the specific needs of areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the Convergence objective (convergence regions) in order to assess to what degree dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangements could be established;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PECalls for a transitional objective for the support of regions coming out of the Convergence objective and for regions with a GDP per capita 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 categoryto replace the current phasing-out and phasing-in system, thus creating a fair system which reflects the negative impacts of the economic crisis; Believes that such a system will guarantee truly equal treatment between regions and will enhance the release of the endogenous development potential of all EU regions;
Amendment 294 #
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%; 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 303 #
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, integrated development programmes and jeopardise the regions' contribution to the achievement of the EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 312 #
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, integrating people who are disadvantaged and supporting SMEsocial services, social inclusion and SMEs; reiterates the need for the ESF to remain a key component in the Cohesion Policy catering in tandem with the ERDF for the region’s development needs;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
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; supports the introduction of an option for multi-fund OPs which would further facilitate integrated approaches;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 370 #
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 specific regional development needs while ensuring that this thematic approach for programming Structural and Cohesion Funds cannot take place to the detriment of the integrated place- based approach;
Amendment 383 #
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 especially 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 suggested priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverty;
Amendment 395 #
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 reform;
Amendment 432 #
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 attractalls on the Commission to examine and to establish the most appropriate maximum level of support on the basis of a thorough analysis of the development situation and the specific needs of the regions in the framework of each objective, in order to ensure that applications will respond to the real needs of each region and will aim to sustainable results in a long-term perspective; 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 473 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Supports the creation of a flexibility reserve established on the basis of appropriations automatically de- committed during the programming period, and aimed at triggering the Structural Funds in an economic, social or environmental crisis in conjunction with the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund;
Amendment 486 #
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’ growthParticularly stresses the fact that cohesion policy, which is at the same time ‘smart’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘inclusive’ plays a crucial role within the EU 2020 strategy and can give, as all policy fields, a contribution to these goals; points out that this provides further clear evidence of the importance of cohesion policy as a whole, and rejects any fragmentation of this policy across various budget headings as cohesion policy should have its own heading within the EU budget;
Amendment 491 #
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 been as ina real terms rise in the Cohesion Policy Budget for the next period compared to the current planning period;
Amendment 541 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Supports the Commission's proposaltresses that the Nn+2 and n+3 rules 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 implementatmaintained, possibly combined with greater flexibility to cover exceptional situations which might be expected to arise within the next programming periond;