BETA


2008/2061(INI) Best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI KREHL Constanze (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion BUDG GRIESBECK Nathalie (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052, RoP 052-p4

Events

2009/06/04
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2009/03/24
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2009/03/24
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2009/03/24
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 585 votes to 35, with 42 abstentions, a resolution on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds.

Broadly similar challenges for all regions : the resolution notes that the regions of the EU are confronted with broadly similar challenges, though their impact differs greatly from region to region: globalisation and the accelerated economic restructuring that goes with it, the opening up of trade relations, the consequences of the technological revolution, and climate change, the development of the knowledge-based economy, demographic change, depopulation and the rise in immigration.

Cohesion policy cannot develop its full potential to meet these challenges whilst potential applicants for aid are faced with major obstacles in relation to utilising the European Union's structural funds, including: excessive bureaucracy, too many complex regulations (which in certain cases are available on-line only), frequent modification of eligibility criteria, lack of transparency in decision-making processes and co-financing schemes, inadequate arrangements for interregional coordination and lack of a functioning cooperation scheme between national, regional and local authorities.

Simplifying the procedures : the Parliament stresses that disseminating best practices in EU regional policy should be directed chiefly to Managing Authorities , guiding them to draw up rules governing access to structural resources, so that exchanges of information and experience can contribute to a substantive improvement in project quality, by providing solutions to joint problems and choosing more effective and targeted interventions. MEPs stress in particular the need to simplify the procedures governing the implementation of Structural Funds projects and programmes, particularly as regards management and control systems.

Removing obstacles : the Commission is called upon to take a certain number of measures, such as: (i) to gear the evaluation criteria for projects co-financed by the Structural Funds to the long term; (ii) to develop specific evaluation criteria for innovative projects; (iii) to draw up special policy measures for regions with specific geographical characteristics; (iv) to coordinate the rules on cost eligibility with the Member States; (v) to ensure advance payments to beneficiaries to a greater extent.

The resolution recommends that the Commission go further and develop a concerted, approach to the interregional exchange of best practices , with a view to enabling actors involved in cohesion policy to draw on the experience of others. Identifying best practices must not lead to additional red tape for applicants and project promoters and bureaucracy in the use of Structural Funds must be kept to a minimum.

General and subject-specific criteria for identifying best practices : MEPs criticise the lack of transparency in the Commission's objective bases for identifying best practices. They call on the Commission to draw up a set of criteria tailored specifically to cohesion policy that will enable these 'best practices' to be distinguished from those applying to other projects.

The Commission is called upon to take account of 16 general criteria in identifying best practices, including project quality and its innovativeness, assurance of the partnership principle, sustainability of the measure concerned and the impact on employment and SMEs.

Additional factors : the Parliament recommends that, on the basis of analysis of a large number of projects from many EU regions, additional factors be taken into account for the identification of best practices in cohesion policy areas that are of particular importance for the development of specific regions and of the EU as a whole and that display a marked variety of approaches to implementation.

Moreover, MEPs recommend that a number of factors be taken into account for the following areas: (i) research and development/innovation; (ii) environment, climate and sustainable energy policy; (iii) creation of high-quality jobs; (iv) lifelong learning; (v) integrated urban development; (vi) demographic change; (vii) cross-border cooperation; (viii) public-private partnerships.

MEPs are aware that it is exceptionally difficult for a project cumulatively to meet all of the above criteria and call on the Commission, therefore, before applying these criteria, to list them in order of priority and to determine those that represent a higher priority.

Exchange of best practices : the Commission is called upon to:

organise and coordinate the exchange of best practices through a network of regions, and to create a public website containing key information about the projects in all Community languages for this purpose; set up within the current administrative framework a specific office in the Directorate-General for Regional Policy to organise, in cooperation with this network of regions, the evaluation, collection and exchange of best practices, and to disseminate this good-practice culture to all its departments; use the available tools of the Committee of the Regions, in particular the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in order to exchange best practices between regions and Member States.

Documents
2009/03/24
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2009/02/24
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2009/02/24
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2009/02/12
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Constanze Angela KREHL (PES, DE) on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the structural funds. It notes that the regions of the EU are confronted with broadly similar challenges, though their impact differs greatly from region to region: globalisation and the accelerated economic restructuring that goes with it, the consequences of the technological revolution, and climate change, the development of the knowledge-based economy, demographic change, and the rise in immigration. Cohesion policy cannot develop its full potential to meet these challenges since potential applicants for aid are faced with major obstacles in relation to utilising the EU’s structural funds, including: excessive bureaucracy too many complex regulations, frequent modification, by certain Member States, of eligibility criteria and requisite documentation; lack of transparency in decision-making processes and co-financing schemes and delays in payments, cumbersome centrally managed administration in Member States; and inadequate decentralised administrative capacity and different models of regional administration in Member States, which prevent the existence of comparative data and the exchange of best practices.

The committee underlines that, although the added value of disseminating best practices among the broader public has to be taken into account, attempts to introduce those practices in EU regional policy should be directed chiefly to Managing Authorities . The latter should be helped to draw up rules governing access to structural resources, so that exchanges of information and experience can contribute to a substantive improvement in project quality, by providing solutions to joint problems and choosing more effective interventions. Members point to the need to simplify the procedures governing the implementation of Structural Funds projects and programmes, particularly as regards management and control systems. Removal of obstacles : the Commission is asked to enact a series of specified measures, such as gearing the evaluation criteria for projects co-financed by the structural funds of the EU to the long term. Members recommend that the Commission go further and develop a concerted, approach to the interregional exchange of best practices, with a view to enabling actors involved in cohesion policy to draw on the experience of others. Bureaucracy in the use of Structural Funds must be kept to a minimum, and not needlessly increased by individual conditions imposed by Member States.

General and subject-specific criteria for identifying best practices : the report criticises the lack of transparency in the Commission's objective bases for identifying best practices, and calls on the Commission, in the light of the widespread use of the term 'best practices', and also the frequent parallel use of the terms 'good practices' or 'success stories', to draw up a set of criteria tailored specifically to cohesion policy that will enable these 'best practices' to be distinguished from those applying to other projects.

Members went on to recommend that the Commission take account of 16 factors in identifying best practices, amongst them, project quality, assurance of partnership principle and sustainability of the measure concerned.

They also recommend that, on the basis of analysis of a large number of projects from many EU regions, additional factors be taken into account for the identification of best practices in cohesion policy areas that are of particular importance for the development of specific regions and of the EU as a whole and that display a marked variety of approaches to implementation.

The committee recommends that account be taken of a series of factors for each of the following areas: 'Research and development/innovation'; 'Environment, climate and sustainable energy policy'; 'Creation of high-quality jobs'; 'Lifelong learning'; 'Integrated urban development'; 'Demographic change'; 'Cross-border cooperation'; and 'Public-private partnerships'.

It is aware that it is exceptionally difficult for a project cumulatively to meet all of these criteria, and calls on the Commission to list the criteria in order of priority, so as to make it easier to designate noteworthy projects as best practices.

Exchange of best practices : Members ask the Commission to do the following:

to coordinate the exchange of best practices through a network of regions, and to create a public website containing key information about the projects in all Community languages for this purpose; to set up within the current administrative framework a specific office in the Directorate-General for Regional Policy to organise, the evaluation, collection and exchange of best practices and to act as a permanent contact point for both the supply and the demand side, with the aim of establishing a long-term, and successful exchange of best practices in the field of cohesion policy; to use the available tools of the Committee of the Regions, in particular the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in order to exchange best practices between regions and Member States.

2009/01/28
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2009/01/27
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2009/01/23
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/12/17
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2008/03/26
   EP - KREHL Constanze (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2008/03/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2004/09/20
   EP - GRIESBECK Nathalie (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
110 2008/2061(INI)
2009/01/12 BUDG 7 amendments...
source: PE-412.285
2009/01/23 REGI 101 amendments...
source: PE-418.350
2009/01/28 REGI 2 amendments...
source: PE-419.859

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE418.035
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE418.035
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE412.050&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE412.050&secondRef=02
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE418.350
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE418.350
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE419.859
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE419.859
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html
docs/5/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=16811&j=0&l=en
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2009-02-24T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html title: A6-0095/2009
events/2
date
2009-02-24T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html title: A6-0095/2009
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE
events/5
date
2009-03-24T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0156_EN.html title: T6-0156/2009
summary
events/5
date
2009-03-24T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0156_EN.html title: T6-0156/2009
summary
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: KREHL Constanze date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2008-03-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KREHL Constanze group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2004-09-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html
docs/5/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0095_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-156
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0156_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze
  • date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0095/2009 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16811&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-156 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0156/2009 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HÜBNER Danuta
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2008-03-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KREHL Constanze group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
BUDG
date
2004-09-20T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2004-09-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2008-03-26T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze
docs
  • date: 2008-12-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE418.035 title: PE418.035 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2009-01-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE412.050&secondRef=02 title: PE412.050 committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2009-01-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE418.350 title: PE418.350 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2009-01-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE419.859 title: PE419.859 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN title: A6-0095/2009 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2009-06-04T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=16811&j=0&l=en title: SP(2009)3060 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Constanze Angela KREHL (PES, DE) on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the structural funds. It notes that the regions of the EU are confronted with broadly similar challenges, though their impact differs greatly from region to region: globalisation and the accelerated economic restructuring that goes with it, the consequences of the technological revolution, and climate change, the development of the knowledge-based economy, demographic change, and the rise in immigration. Cohesion policy cannot develop its full potential to meet these challenges since potential applicants for aid are faced with major obstacles in relation to utilising the EU’s structural funds, including: excessive bureaucracy too many complex regulations, frequent modification, by certain Member States, of eligibility criteria and requisite documentation; lack of transparency in decision-making processes and co-financing schemes and delays in payments, cumbersome centrally managed administration in Member States; and inadequate decentralised administrative capacity and different models of regional administration in Member States, which prevent the existence of comparative data and the exchange of best practices. The committee underlines that, although the added value of disseminating best practices among the broader public has to be taken into account, attempts to introduce those practices in EU regional policy should be directed chiefly to Managing Authorities . The latter should be helped to draw up rules governing access to structural resources, so that exchanges of information and experience can contribute to a substantive improvement in project quality, by providing solutions to joint problems and choosing more effective interventions. Members point to the need to simplify the procedures governing the implementation of Structural Funds projects and programmes, particularly as regards management and control systems. Removal of obstacles : the Commission is asked to enact a series of specified measures, such as gearing the evaluation criteria for projects co-financed by the structural funds of the EU to the long term. Members recommend that the Commission go further and develop a concerted, approach to the interregional exchange of best practices, with a view to enabling actors involved in cohesion policy to draw on the experience of others. Bureaucracy in the use of Structural Funds must be kept to a minimum, and not needlessly increased by individual conditions imposed by Member States. General and subject-specific criteria for identifying best practices : the report criticises the lack of transparency in the Commission's objective bases for identifying best practices, and calls on the Commission, in the light of the widespread use of the term 'best practices', and also the frequent parallel use of the terms 'good practices' or 'success stories', to draw up a set of criteria tailored specifically to cohesion policy that will enable these 'best practices' to be distinguished from those applying to other projects. Members went on to recommend that the Commission take account of 16 factors in identifying best practices, amongst them, project quality, assurance of partnership principle and sustainability of the measure concerned. They also recommend that, on the basis of analysis of a large number of projects from many EU regions, additional factors be taken into account for the identification of best practices in cohesion policy areas that are of particular importance for the development of specific regions and of the EU as a whole and that display a marked variety of approaches to implementation. The committee recommends that account be taken of a series of factors for each of the following areas: 'Research and development/innovation'; 'Environment, climate and sustainable energy policy'; 'Creation of high-quality jobs'; 'Lifelong learning'; 'Integrated urban development'; 'Demographic change'; 'Cross-border cooperation'; and 'Public-private partnerships'. It is aware that it is exceptionally difficult for a project cumulatively to meet all of these criteria, and calls on the Commission to list the criteria in order of priority, so as to make it easier to designate noteworthy projects as best practices. Exchange of best practices : Members ask the Commission to do the following: to coordinate the exchange of best practices through a network of regions, and to create a public website containing key information about the projects in all Community languages for this purpose; to set up within the current administrative framework a specific office in the Directorate-General for Regional Policy to organise, the evaluation, collection and exchange of best practices and to act as a permanent contact point for both the supply and the demand side, with the aim of establishing a long-term, and successful exchange of best practices in the field of cohesion policy; to use the available tools of the Committee of the Regions, in particular the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in order to exchange best practices between regions and Member States.
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN title: A6-0095/2009
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16811&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-156 title: T6-0156/2009 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 585 votes to 35, with 42 abstentions, a resolution on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds. Broadly similar challenges for all regions : the resolution notes that the regions of the EU are confronted with broadly similar challenges, though their impact differs greatly from region to region: globalisation and the accelerated economic restructuring that goes with it, the opening up of trade relations, the consequences of the technological revolution, and climate change, the development of the knowledge-based economy, demographic change, depopulation and the rise in immigration. Cohesion policy cannot develop its full potential to meet these challenges whilst potential applicants for aid are faced with major obstacles in relation to utilising the European Union's structural funds, including: excessive bureaucracy, too many complex regulations (which in certain cases are available on-line only), frequent modification of eligibility criteria, lack of transparency in decision-making processes and co-financing schemes, inadequate arrangements for interregional coordination and lack of a functioning cooperation scheme between national, regional and local authorities. Simplifying the procedures : the Parliament stresses that disseminating best practices in EU regional policy should be directed chiefly to Managing Authorities , guiding them to draw up rules governing access to structural resources, so that exchanges of information and experience can contribute to a substantive improvement in project quality, by providing solutions to joint problems and choosing more effective and targeted interventions. MEPs stress in particular the need to simplify the procedures governing the implementation of Structural Funds projects and programmes, particularly as regards management and control systems. Removing obstacles : the Commission is called upon to take a certain number of measures, such as: (i) to gear the evaluation criteria for projects co-financed by the Structural Funds to the long term; (ii) to develop specific evaluation criteria for innovative projects; (iii) to draw up special policy measures for regions with specific geographical characteristics; (iv) to coordinate the rules on cost eligibility with the Member States; (v) to ensure advance payments to beneficiaries to a greater extent. The resolution recommends that the Commission go further and develop a concerted, approach to the interregional exchange of best practices , with a view to enabling actors involved in cohesion policy to draw on the experience of others. Identifying best practices must not lead to additional red tape for applicants and project promoters and bureaucracy in the use of Structural Funds must be kept to a minimum. General and subject-specific criteria for identifying best practices : MEPs criticise the lack of transparency in the Commission's objective bases for identifying best practices. They call on the Commission to draw up a set of criteria tailored specifically to cohesion policy that will enable these 'best practices' to be distinguished from those applying to other projects. The Commission is called upon to take account of 16 general criteria in identifying best practices, including project quality and its innovativeness, assurance of the partnership principle, sustainability of the measure concerned and the impact on employment and SMEs. Additional factors : the Parliament recommends that, on the basis of analysis of a large number of projects from many EU regions, additional factors be taken into account for the identification of best practices in cohesion policy areas that are of particular importance for the development of specific regions and of the EU as a whole and that display a marked variety of approaches to implementation. Moreover, MEPs recommend that a number of factors be taken into account for the following areas: (i) research and development/innovation; (ii) environment, climate and sustainable energy policy; (iii) creation of high-quality jobs; (iv) lifelong learning; (v) integrated urban development; (vi) demographic change; (vii) cross-border cooperation; (viii) public-private partnerships. MEPs are aware that it is exceptionally difficult for a project cumulatively to meet all of the above criteria and call on the Commission, therefore, before applying these criteria, to list them in order of priority and to determine those that represent a higher priority. Exchange of best practices : the Commission is called upon to: organise and coordinate the exchange of best practices through a network of regions, and to create a public website containing key information about the projects in all Community languages for this purpose; set up within the current administrative framework a specific office in the Directorate-General for Regional Policy to organise, in cooperation with this network of regions, the evaluation, collection and exchange of best practices, and to disseminate this good-practice culture to all its departments; use the available tools of the Committee of the Regions, in particular the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in order to exchange best practices between regions and Member States.
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HÜBNER Danuta
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
REGI/6/60372
New
  • REGI/6/60372
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure EP 052-p4
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052-p2
procedure/subject
Old
  • 4.70 Regional policy
  • 4.70.01 Structural funds, investment funds in general
New
4.70
Regional policy
4.70.01
Structural funds, investment funds in general, programmes
other/0/dg/title
Old
Regional Policy
New
Regional and Urban Policy
procedure/subject/1
Old
4.70.01 Structural funds, structural and investment funds in general
New
4.70.01 Structural funds, investment funds in general
procedure/subject/1
Old
4.70.01 Structural funds in general
New
4.70.01 Structural funds, structural and investment funds in general
activities
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze
  • date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-95&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0095/2009 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16811&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-156 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0156/2009 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2004-09-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2008-03-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: KREHL Constanze
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional Policy commissioner: HÜBNER Danuta
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
REGI/6/60372
reference
2008/2061(INI)
title
Best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds
legal_basis
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject