45 Amendments of Patrice TIROLIEN related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 26 May 2004 on ‘A stronger partnership for the outermost regions’ (COM (2004) 343) and the Communication from the Commission of 17 October 2008 on ‘The outermost regions: an asset for Europe’ (COM(2008) 642),
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas cohesion policy was created as a counterpart to the single market to provide the means for achieving solidarity between the Member States and the regions of Europe,
Amendment 30 #
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 only 20% of projects under the heading of Territorial Cooperation accord with the Lisbon aims,
Amendment 34 #
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 framework conditions in individual Membermacroeconomic factors and the failure to respect multi-level governance, in particular the failure to involve the regional level in the elaboration and implementation of the Stratesgy,
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the external dimension of cohesion policy remains underexploited, particularly with regard to the remote and outermost regions; whereas the weak budgetary capacity of certain third countries can limit their ability to cofinance certain projects;
Amendment 60 #
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 lasting and measurable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of a disadvantagedll Europe’s regions and such improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus,
Amendment 97 #
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 environment; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in Articles 349 and 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, and northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
Amendment 106 #
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 strategycohesion policy makes a significant contribution to the economic and social development of the Union and consequently supports the Union’s global competitiveness by encouraging the development of each region; points out, with this same objective in mind, that better coordination with the other Community policies should be encouraged; considers that cohesion policy must apply to all the regions;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) and sub-regional 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;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies, provided that regional authorities are included in their modes of governance and that they are given specific content, particularly in terms of programme management, as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation to environmental protection; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU structural funds; considers that the macroregional approach, which does not require additional funds, could be used to strengthen the links between cohesion policy and neighbourhood policy;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whetherConsiders that specific operational programmes forbased on functional geographical entitterritories (such as metropolitan regions or, sea basins, mountain ranges or river basins will) may yield additional benefits; is particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence of political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls instead for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter-governmental levels over and above Community intervention, particularly since they form part of the implementation of the territorial cohesion objective; however, such programmes should derive their support from the competent regional authorities, which can implement or coordinate them;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and citie, cities and urban areas in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; 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 while retaining the regional strategy;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that structural and cohesion policy must not be biased towards specific types of region; cCalls for urban-rural partnerships to be seen in their broader socio-economic context;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must be more strongly oriented towardsthe structural funds must respond to 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 approaches that could serve as models,calls, therefore, for the National Reform Programmes to take due account of these factors by rolling out measures to be implemented while retaining existing national and regional competences;
Amendment 211 #
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 only in that is sustainable and coherent at European level particularly for 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 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 228 #
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 current objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), which has proved its effectiveness;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that the development of basic infrastructure and support for conventional forms of energy should also be regarded as compatible with EU 2020, because only when they have competitive transport, energy and communications networks and waste-disposal infrastructure will the convergence regions be in a position to contribute to achieving the EU 2020 objectives – and that is precisely why the weaker and neediest regions must be given some leeway to interpret those objectives;
Amendment 243 #
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)Accepts the retention of GDP as the key criterion in determining the eligibility of regions for the various cohesion policy objectives, and, where appropriate, of cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that the competconsiders, however, that in its implement national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels; the cohesion policy must be based on broader indicators than GDP; stresses, furthermore, that the harmonisation of national statistical instruments must be improved; sees it as a priority to consider closely further indicators in addition to GDP within the cohesion policy;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based onCalls for the creation of a new intermediate category for regions with a 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- of the EU average; the purpose of this system would be to limit the threshold effect observed at 75% of Community GDP (the current eligibility threshold between the Convergence Objective and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives) and to guarantee equal treatment between these regions; it would seek to take account of the difficulties faced both by the regions which in 2013 will for the first time no longer be covered by the Convergence Objective, and by those which, while eligible for the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective during the current programming period, are still facing structural socio-economic difficutlting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate categoryes owing to the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy and are affected by internal regional disparities; the creation of this category should not penalise regions currently benefiting from the Convergence Objective or the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective, or which are currently in the phasing in or phasing out stage;
Amendment 301 #
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 networksrans- European Networks, particularly those concerned with transport and energy – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continube territorialised more in order to increase its effectiveness and raise the profile of its measures and the purpose of the policies which it finances; recalls that it does more 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 SMEs;
Amendment 324 #
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 regulation; recalls its constant concern to favour the simplest procedures and those which local actors are best able to use;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered, and; is opposed, however, to the possibility that such reintegration might result in a reduction in the budgets for the ERDF and EAFRD; calls for binding targets to be set for the Member States and the regions in order to establish more standardised arrangements for administering the EU structural funds and the regionally oriented rural development programmes;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionsRegions (NUTS II) in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the structural fund regulations; stresses the need to involve the social partners and representatives of civil society at the earliest stage of the negotiations and of the implementation of the Structural Funds;
Amendment 367 #
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 needprinciple of a Community thematic menu that the Commission is proposing, on condition that it is sufficiently broad to take account of the specific needs of each European region; considers that, the less rich the regions are, the more they should expand their range of priorities;
Amendment 378 #
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 be determined at regional level and at the the minimum to cover 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 393 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 406 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Strongly opposes all forms of conditionality which might entail penalties for local authorities when they have no power to influence the decision- making process; calls on the Commission, on the other hand, to urge the Member States to implement the reforms necessary for the effective use of financial aid in fields directly related to cohesion policy in order to avoid any irregularities and make the aid effective; strongly opposes the idea that cohesion policy serves to introduce provisions requiring Member States to implement fundamental social and economic reforms;
Amendment 423 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a review 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 accordinglycofinancing rates not to be revised downwards and for them to be varied in the light of regional development levels;
Amendment 439 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not generally 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 beaccepts its being made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market- oriented credit options to cover their share of project financing;
Amendment 445 #
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 457 #
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; stresses that the introduction of innovative financial instruments must under no circumstances be seen as an alternative to cohesion policy spending under the EU budget; 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 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Emphasises that the provision of subsidies must always be retained as an option and that it must be the responsibility of those involved on the ground to use the funding mix best suited to regional needs; calls for it to be clearly established what will be covered by subsidies and what by loans or cross-financing arrangements;
Amendment 464 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. ConsiderNotes that the EIB must assume a stronger role in the financing of TEN infrastructure; calls for more emphasis to be placed on self-supporting public-private partnerships; considers, as a matter of principle, that the European Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard for’s oversight of the EIB should be enhanced with a view to ensuring greater transparency, and in relation to in the process of making decision-makings on and supervisiong the policies the bank helps to finance;
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 502 #
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;
Amendment 544 #
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 thatfunding and, in line with the objectives of the European recovery plan, where a region is in recession, and that the other 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 556 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57a. Deplores the failure to make use of synergies between cohesion policy and cooperation funds such as the DCI and the EDF; calls for the opportunities for cross-financing with such funds to be increased;
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 560 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Reiterates its call for the Committee on Regional Development to be involved in and share responsibility for determining the form that both these instruments will take in future;