Procedure completed
2010/2160(INI) State of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between ERDF and other Structural Funds
Lead committee dossier: REGI/7/03654
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | BUDG | GODMANIS Ivars (ALDE) | |
| Opinion | EMPL | COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano (S&D) | |
| Lead | REGI | STAVRAKAKIS Georgios (S&D) | TEIXEIRA Nuno (PPE), MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole (ALDE), DELLI Karima (Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich (ECR) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2011/06/23
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament
-
T7-0286/2011
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 613 votes to 47, with 10 abstentions, a resolution on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds.The resolution notes that the Commission, in the Europe 2020 strategy, pledged to mobilise the EU financial instruments (namely the rural development and the structural funds, R&D programmes, Trans-European Networks (TENs), the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the EIB, among others) as part of a consistent funding strategy, pulling together EU and national public and private funding, in the context of the flagship initiative entitled ‘Resource efficient Europe’, thus reflecting the need for coherence between policies and instruments.Members point out that the goal of cohesion policy should be sustainable, smart and inclusive economic growth evenly spread both territorially and socially, reduction of development disparities between regions, job creation, improved quality of life, worker training for new jobs, including in the field of sustainable economy, social and territorial cohesion and the implementation of the European social model, which constitutes a factor of cohesion and competitiveness of the European economy.The mid-term review acknowledges that budgetary flexibility is limited and that obstacles exist to reprioritisation even within programmes, Parliament considers that, in the current post-crisis situation, it is more important than before to understand the processes in the Member States' economies and the results achieved through the use of EU resources.Members consider that the rationalisation of spending calls for greater effectiveness and efficiency of policies at EU level as well as at national, regional and local levels, and whereas closer coordination and complementarity are essential elements in the modernisation of cohesion policy in the future.In this context, it sets out the following recommendations:(1) Greater coordination and synergies: the resolution calls for a single strategic framework to be proposed, in time for the next financing period after 2013, to ensure a common approach and to capitalise on synergies between all actions which serve on the ground to further cohesion policy objectives as defined by the Treaties and are funded by the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the ESF, the EAFRD and the EFF.Members believe that expenditure in the field of cohesion policy must be rationalised by reducing fragmentation of funding instruments and channels and fostering greater complementarity between the various funding instruments. They stress that coordination should be further enhanced not only between cohesion policy instruments as such (the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund) but also between actions financed by these instruments and activities carried out under TENs, the Seventh Framework Programme and the CIP.Members welcome the proposal set out in the Commission Communication on the Budget Review for the adoption by the Commission of a Common Strategic Framework in order to strengthen the integration of EU policies for the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy. They call in this context for action to foster synergies between funding methods for the EU 2020 strategy’s flagship initiatives.Parliament draws attention to the role that the ERDF plays in the effective use of the ESF, given that the ERDF is responsible for the creation of conditions such as proper infrastructure and adequate accessibility, without which employment-related investments cannot be efficient. Members are of the opinion that the rural development actions under the EAFRD and the sustainable development actions for fisheries areas under the EFF should be integrated in a single framework with the other structural funds, namely the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the ESF.Stressing that mutual reinforcement and coordination of EU policies can undoubtedly ensure the best possible results from the EU budget, Members call for the development of financial engineering initiatives such as the instruments financed by the EIB, and for greater recourse to these instruments.The resolution highlights the fact, however, that many Member States face difficulties in coordinating the various funds and have apparently expressed anxiety about the lack of synergy, and even in some cases about overlap, between funds. Members highlight, in this respect, the importance of co-financing and the need to simplify the rules to make it possible to strengthen synergies between the structural funds.(2) Instruments to achieve cohesion: Parliament calls on the Commission to examine the most effective ways of increasing synergies on the ground. Members suggest, in this respect, that consideration be given to the possibility of allowing the Member States to choose to have a single operational programme per region or a multi-regional operational programme in the framework of macro-regional strategies encompassing different funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EFF) with a single managing authority, paying particular attention to the regions’ contributions to a decentralised approach and to giving the regions more autonomy and flexibility with regard to participation in their own strategies and upgrading regional and local levels of administration. They suggest that the national management authorities in the Member States draw up future operational programmes geared as closely as possible to local and regional objectives.The Commission is invited to:consider multi-fund programmes for Member States and regions that want to use them; put forward proposals for reviewing the provisions on cross-financing and reducing the barriers to their application; play its role with a view to increasing administrative capacity in the Member States, at regional and local level as well as among stakeholders, in order to overcome barriers to effective synergies between structural funds and other funds and to support effective policy design and implementation; to develop a one-stop shop scheme to provide practical guidance, information and advice for those concerned, so as to ensure that the public is kept properly up to date with regard both to cross-financing and to synergies between funds in general; enhance both technical assistance and training for national, regional and local administrations in order to increase the capacities and knowledge of rules on implementation-related problems; draw up a European guide to multilevel governance and encourage the Member States to implement it in line with specific local and regional objectives. (3) Improved governance: Members believe that the new strategy for the use of funds will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of governance, which are capable of applying the strategic objectives to local conditions, inter alia through a structured dialogue with all stakeholders, organisations which promote gender rights, social partners and non-governmental organisations but also financial and banking institutions. They stress the need to leave sufficient margin for regional and local requirements in formulating political objectives.Lastly, the Commission is called upon, when establishing the new Common Strategic Framework and bringing forward proposals for regulations, to include provisions enabling local and regional partnerships (cities, towns, functional regions, groups of local authorities) to incorporate the various EU funding streams into a consistent and integrated framework in their respective territories.
- 2011/04/08 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
2011/03/22
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2010/09/09
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0141/2011
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0286/2011
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 83 |
2010/2160(INI)
2010/12/14
EMPL
47 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Draws attention to the fact that
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers cohesion policy to be a
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers cohesion policy to be
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Acknowledges that cohesion policy's integrated approach, that harmonises different sectoral aims with the needs and potentials of regions, is a precious feature that contributes to its effectiveness; therefore it needs to be maintained and further strengthened;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the difficulties created by the economic crisis should prompt the Commission to submit without delay a proposal for the re
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the difficulties created by the economic crisis should prompt the Commission to submit without delay a proposal for the reform of the Structural Funds that is ambitious and consistent with the objectives laid down by the Europe
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) Believes that cohesion policies should make more use of their economic component in order to become better complements to other existing European policies in order to consolidate economic growth through job creation, increased employment and emphasis on more competitive behaviour;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that, to ensure the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, EU social and territorial cohesion
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that, to ensure the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, EU
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that, to ensure the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, EU social and territorial cohesion policies should be closely interconnected within a new
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that, to ensure the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, EU social and territorial cohesion policies should be closely interconnected within a new framework establishing strong synergies between EU policies and all the structural funds; stresses that the European Social Fund is the only instrument specifically aimed at the labour market and social inclusion, as specified by Article 162 of the TFEU, and that it therefore needs to be strengthened;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Draws attention to the fact that social and economic cohesion and territorial cohesion are fundamental principles in determining all EU policies and activities, as laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and that their implementation should take due account of the provisions of Article 9 of the TFEU;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers that, given the negative effects of the economic crisis seen in the deepening of regional disparities, smaller and more targeted funds could be created through budgetary reallocation, in order to raise efficiency on the ground and to complement the existing funds by quickly responding to regional problems and deficiencies;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that, in order to be used profitably, the ESF must focus on investing in not only skills, ongoing training and retraining, the
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that, in order to be used profitably, the ESF must focus on investing in skills, ongoing training
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that, in order to be used profitably, the ESF must focus on creating job opportunities, investing in skills, ongoing training and retraining, the proper functioning of the labour market and social conditions, with a view to promoting employability, productivity, growth and employment in Europe;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that, in order to be used profitably, the ESF must focus on investing in skills, ongoing training and retraining, the proper functioning of the labour market and social conditions, with a view to promoting employability, productivity, growth, fair pay, quality of life and employment in Europe;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that the ESF, as a support instrument for ongoing training, the acquisition of qualifications and career re-orientation, should be considered an essential resource, which is not in fact being exploited to the full, for the promotion of comprehensive and efficient growth and knowledge-based competitiveness for Europe;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses that the ESF not only contributes in general terms to achieving all EU2020 Strategy objectives but, more specifically, also constitutes the principal EU funding instrument for projects contributing to two particular objectives of this strategy, increasing employment rates to 75% in the 20–64 age group and raising over 20 million individuals out of poverty;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to fin
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers the Structural Funds to be the principal instrument for the overall achievement of Community policies. The independent regulation, management and implementation of each fund, even within the context of policy coordination where it exists, is vital for the achievement of specific objectives and for preventing any misuse of funds;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to increase the ESF’s contribution in the context of the future architecture of the Structural Funds; considers that the ESF should be brought under a regulation and a basic strategic framework laying down general provisions on the cohesion funds, while maintaining its own rules, and operational and funding arrangements; urges the Commission to seek increased funding for ESF operational programmes in future;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to increase the ESF’s contribution in the context of the future architecture of the Structural Funds; considers that the ESF should be brought under a regulation and a basic strategic framework laying down general provisions on the cohesion funds, while maintaining its own rules, and operational and funding arrangements; previous experience has shown that the ESF and ERDF in combination, with the utilisation of up to 10% of ESF funding, have produced successful and sustainable results and that these flexible arrangements must continue to apply;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Believes that the development of human resources and a better dissemination of information is a precondition for the successful absorption of funds and for the accurate realization of different projects;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Considers it important to promote the adaptation of workers' skills to the demands of the labour market and to adapt lifelong-learning programmes to the promotion of future-oriented jobs in a rapidly evolving knowledge society;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Draws attention to the role that the European Regional Development Fund plays in the effective use of the European Social Fund, given that the ERDF is responsible for the creation of conditions such as proper infrastructure and adequate accessibility, without which employment-related investments cannot be efficient;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the uneven impact of the
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the uneven impact of the economic crisis on the EU’s territory and population; believes that the new strategy for the use of funds will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of governance, social partners, advisers on gender-related issues and non- governmental organisations, which are capable of applying the strategic objectives to local conditions, inter alia through a structured dialogue with all stakeholders;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the uneven impact of the economic crisis on the EU’s territory and population; believes that the new strategy for the use of funds will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the uneven impact of the economic crisis on the EU’s territory, social groups and population; believes that the new strategy for the use of funds will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of governance, which are capable of applying the strategic objectives to local conditions, inter alia through a structured dialogue with all stakeholders;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Considers the active participation of the social partners by means of uninterrupted social and territorial dialogue to be of vital importance in using the funds more effectively;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Affirms that the goal of cohesion policies should be sustainable economic growth evenly spread both territorially and socially, job creation and
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Stresses that the economic crisis has still further increased the urgent need for measures in the sectors covered by the European Social Fund, promoting in particular employment, career re- orientation, social inclusion and poverty reduction;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for re
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit a
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for reform of the Structural Funds with a view to streamlining procedures and rules for their use so as to ensure that they benefit small undertakings also, improving the monitoring system and enhancing the transparency of fund allocation in order to make the EU's cohesion policies more visible.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for reform of the Structural Funds with a view to streamlining procedures and rules for their use, improving the monitoring system and enhancing the transparency of fund allocation in order to
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for reform of the Structural Funds with a view to streamlining procedures and rules for their use, improving the monitoring system and enhancing the transparency of fund allocation in order to make the EU's cohesion polic
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for the introduction of incentives to encourage successful results and considers it necessary for funds to be earmarked for clear and measurable objectives according to the purpose of each, thereby making it possible to evaluate performance more accurately;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for the development of a one- stop shop scheme to provide practical guidance, information and advice for those concerned, so as to ensure that the public is kept properly up to date; urges that this move towards simplification be brought to the attention of the public, the purpose being to reduce to the necessary minimum the amount of information requested;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Affirms that the goal of cohesion polic
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Affirms that the goal of cohesion policies should be sustainable economic growth evenly spread both territorially and socially, job creation, improved quality of life and the
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Affirms that the goal of cohesion policies should be sustainable economic growth evenly spread both territorially and socially, job creation and the implementation of the European social models, which constitutes a factor of cohesion and competitiveness for the European economy;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new) Affirms that cohesion policies should be used for the achievement of sustainable growth across EU, a fair and even distribution of welfare by fostering competition and aiming at decreasing the disparities in terms of socio-economic aspects among the EU regions;
source: PE-454.559
2011/03/03
REGI
36 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas a local-development-based approach can contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy, and while
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Believes that expenditure in the field of cohesion policy must be rationalised by reducing fragmentation of funding instruments and channels, and welcomes the Commission proposal for better prioritisation and a thematic concentration of EU and national resources
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Believes that expenditure in the field of cohesion policy must be rationalised by reducing fragmentation of funding instruments and channels
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Recalls that one of the main reasons why the ERDF and the other Structural Funds have struggled to effectively channel money towards projects with a greater possibility of generating economic development and employment creation, has been an excessive emphasis on absorption capacity, rather than on results;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Insists that the European Social Fund should remain in the framework of the regulation on general provisions on the cohesion policy funds, but needs its own rules;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that an unfocused and uncoordinated policy design may end up financing a very wide and disparate collection of projects, without necessarily prioritising those investments with the greatest impact on competitiveness and economic development in the regions;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that cooperation at each territorial level of the administrative bodies in charge of the various funds (ERDF, ESF, the Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EFF) must take place by means of multi-fund committees set up to select and monitor projects, thereby rationalising project funding, optimising the absorption of funds and reduce the administrative burden;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that coordination should be further enhanced not only between cohesion policy instruments as such (the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund) but also between actions financed by these instruments and activities carried out under TENs, the Seventh Framework Programme and the CIP, and that it should be able to create synergies with instruments of the external aspects of EU policies such as the EDF, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) or the Financing Instrument for Development Cooperation (IDC);
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that coordination should be further enhanced not only between cohesion policy instruments as such (the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund) – particularly by the establishment of multi- fund programmes – but also between actions financed by these instruments and activities carried out under TENs, the Seventh Framework Programme and the CIP;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers that synergies might be relevant for the objective of territorial cooperation between the ERDF and pre- accession and neighbourhood instruments in the context of cross-border projects;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that this mutual reinforcement and coordination of EU policies can undoubtedly ensure the best possible results from the EU budget; calls for the development of financial engineering initiatives such as the instruments financed by the EIB, and for greater recourse to these instruments;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas a local-development-based approach can contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy, while a
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Highlights the fact, however, that many Member States face difficulties in coordinating the various funds and have apparently expressed anxiety about the lack of synergy, and even in some cases about overlap, between funds; emphasises, in this respect, that the funds’ complex management rules require a high level of institutional capacity in order to overcome barriers and satisfactorily coordinate their implementation; highlights the importance of co-financing and the need to simplify the rules to make it possible to strengthen synergies between the structural funds;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Highlights the fact, however, that many Member States face difficulties in coordinating the various funds and have apparently expressed anxiety about the lack of synergy, and even in some cases about overlap, between funds; emphasises, in this respect, that the funds’ complex management rules require
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for clarification of the territorial scope and harmonisation of the eligibility rules between the ERDF and the EAFRD in rural and suburban areas with the aim of avoiding pointless overlapping between them; insists on the need for close cooperation in the selection and monitoring of projects financed by these two funds in any one particular area;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Believes in this context that merging the ESF and the Globalisation Fund will simplify the management of the funds and in particular will benefit the synergy effects;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that common rules on the management, eligibility, auditing and reporting of projects financed by the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the EFF (especially concerning measures to support the economic diversification of rural and fisheries areas) would not only play a key role in enhancing and facilitating more effective implementation of cohesion policy programmes but would also crucially assist simplification efforts; considers, moreover, that this would simplify both the use of funds by beneficiaries and the management of funds by national authorities, reducing the risk of error while providing differentiation, as needed, to reflect the specificities of policies, instruments and beneficiaries, and also facilitating participation in cohesion policy programmes by smaller stakeholders, as well as easier absorption of available funding, provided this simplification is backed up by sufficient funding for technical assistance;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to enhance both technical assistance and training towards national, regional and local administrations in order to increase the capacities and knowledge of rules on implementation related problems.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Stresses, at the same time, the importance of increasing administrative capacity in the Member States, at regional and local level as well as among stakeholders, by means of easy access to technical assistance, in order to overcome barriers to effective synergies between structural funds and other funds and to support effective policy design and implementation; insists on the essential role the Commission has to play in this regard;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Stresses that European added value can and must be achieved through greater synergy among cohesion policy funding instruments and better coordination between these and other funding instruments;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 b (new) 12b. Recalls the important contribution that respect for the subsidiarity principle and multilevel governance principle makes to fostering coordination between the various decision-making bodies and strengthening synergies between the various funding instruments;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 c (new) 12c. Believes that the architecture of the future cohesion policy should be simpler, more flexible and capable of facilitating the greatest possible take-up and effectiveness of funds;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P a (new) Pa. whereas, in its conclusions of 21 February 2011 on the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, the Council asked the Commission to consider the possibility of setting up multi-fund programmes,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to examine the most effective ways of increasing synergies on the ground; suggests, in this respect, that consideration be given to the possibility of allowing the Member States to choose to have a single operational programme per region, encompassing different funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EFF) with a single managing authority, paying particular attention to the regions' contributions to a decentralised approach and to giving the regions more autonomy and flexibility with regard to participation in their own strategies and upgrading regional and local levels of administration;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to examine the most effective ways of increasing synergies on the ground; suggests, in this
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to examine the most effective ways of increasing synergies on the ground; suggests, in this respect, that consideration be given to the possibility of allowing the Member States to choose to have a single operational programme per region
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Member States to give priority to the investment on institutional capacity and to simplify their national provisions in order to reduce the administrative burden and increase their absorption capacity;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Underlines the value added by cross- financing between the ERDF and the ESF in terms of flexibility for social inclusion projects and integrated urban development strategies; calls on the Commission to publish a guide for management authorities detailing the opportunities provided by this tool and the rules in force;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P a (new) Pa. whereas some regions of the European Union border on third countries which benefit from the European Development Fund (EDF), and whereas it should be possible for the funding synergies of some projects to be specifically highlighted, thereby enabling the development potential of European regions in this situation to increase,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Calls for a single strategic framework to be proposed, in time for the next financing period after 2013, to ensure a common approach and to capitalise on synergies between all actions which serve on the ground to further cohesion policy objectives as defined by the Treaties and are funded by the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the ESF, the EAFRD and the EFF;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Calls for a single strategic framework to be proposed to ensure a common approach and to capitalise on synergies between all actions which serve on the ground to further cohesion policy objectives as defined by the Treaties and are funded by the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the ESF, the EAFRD, the EFF and the E
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the proposal
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal on partnership contracts for development and investment aimed at improving coordination between community funds and national financing for objectives and programmes; underlines the need to involve local and regional authorities in drawing up and implementing these contracts; calls for these contracts to be coordinated with national reforms of sectoral policies with territorial impact (e.g. transport and R&D infrastructure);
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that the Cohesion Fund should be gradually phased out and eventually integrated in the ERDF for convergence regions whilst maintaining the investment priorities in areas linked to sustainable development;
source: PE-460.648
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-01-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/subject/0 |
Old
4.70.01 Structural funds in generalNew
4.70.01 Structural funds, structural and investment funds in general |
2014-11-10Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|