Procedure completed
2011/2035(INI) EC 5th Cohesion Report and Strategy for the post-2013 Cohesion Policy
Lead committee dossier: REGI/7/04862
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | CONT | VAUGHAN Derek (S&D) | |
| Opinion | EMPL | LOPE FONTAGNÉ Verónica (PPE) | |
| Opinion | FEMM | CYMAŃSKI Tadeusz (ECR) | |
| Lead | REGI | PIEPER Markus (PPE) | STAVRAKAKIS Georgios (S&D), PAKARINEN Riikka (ALDE), SCHROEDTER Elisabeth (Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich (ECR), HOARAU Elie (GUE/NGL) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2011/07/05
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0316/2011
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 506 votes to 48, with 101 abstentions a resolution on thefifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy. The resolution follows on from the Communication of the Commission of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’. 1) Cohesion policy added value and investment priorities: Parliament calls for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value. It deems such added value to be achieved where: a) EU projects bring about a sustainable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of disadvantaged, less-developed regions, and where that improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus; b) projects supported at national, regional and local level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of European integration, economic growth, research, environmental protection, culture, resource management, sport, demographic change, sustainability of energy supply, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been achieved without the European stimulus. Members make the following observations:the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance and shared management is one of the major advantages of cohesion policy ; transparency should be introduced (particularly regarding the list of beneficiaries) as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes in the next funding period; major imbalances still exist – and among/in some Member States are actually growing, inter alia as a result of the economic and financial crisis and cohesion policy must therefore continue to concentrate on reducing disparities and implementing harmonious and sustainable development for all regions of the Union, regardless of the Member State in which they are located; Member States and the Commission must retain special forms of preference in respect of the particularly disadvantaged types of region referred to in the TFEU (outermost regions, northernmost regions with a very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions); targeting Structural Fund resources in a broad territorial approach must also serve to compensate for structural weaknesses in the stronger regions; macro-regional strategies afford a major opportunity to harness forms of supranational potential, improve cooperation between the different levels of governance and take a joint approach towards shared challenges such as environmental protection or the use of resources and development capacities; urban areas and regions – including capital cities and their regions – play a key role in achieving the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes in addressing problems of areas with disadvantaged communities should be supported; structural and cohesion funding should also take into account the educational, cultural and socio-political challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy, while remaining in line with the overarching EU objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion. Members call for further place-based local development approaches that could serve as models to be introduced, while retaining existing national and regional competences; cohesion policy should make a greater contribution to the rapid development of environmental technology and renewables; the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in the cohesion of European regions and development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E-roads must be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions and outermost regions; the fundamental principles of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE) must be considered one of the bases of cohesion policy, and t these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programmes. 2) System of objectives and framework for programme planning: Parliament takes the view that the Europe 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the three objectives system (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation). It stresses that the ESF is the most important instrument for the implementation of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy and that the fund can contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the central priorities of that strategy, namely employment, transition to a sustainable economy, a lower number of school drop-outs, fighting against poverty, discrimination and social exclusion. Parliament takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with a per capita GDP below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (per capita GNI below 90% of the EU average). It considers that the competent national and regional authorities should be given scope for the use – at the appropriate decision-making level, for each objective and in a manner reflecting geographical concentrations – of additional indicators, to be agreed in the development and investment partnership contracts, with which to assess the social, economic, environmental, demographic and geographical challenges which they face.Cohesion policy must continue to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind. The neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share of the funding available under Objective 1 (Convergence).Parliament calls on the Commission to present a proposal for the duration of the next programming period that will ensure the provision of adjustable, robust and proportionate transitional assistance for regions no longer coming under the Convergence Objective, in order to address their specific situation, and for regions with per capita GDPbetween 75% and 90% of the EU average, in the form of an intermediate category, in order to avoid unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations. Parliament calls for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment) through its horizontal nature to achieve results on a limited number of EU priorities, such as support for SMEs, green innovations, local economies, education and training, infrastructure, sustainable mobility, renewable energies and energy supply, resource efficiency and social inclusion. Furthermore, 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 Parliament calls for the relevant share of structural funds to be increased to 7%. With a view to increasing synergies, the resolution calls for greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) under the cohesion and structural policies, so as to achieve greater effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development. It suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to a more integrated approach. It also calls for a common strategic framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the framework programmes, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period. The Common Strategic Framework should be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. 3) Incentives, conditionality, result-orientation, co-financing and financing options: the resolution calls for funding under the development and investment partnerships to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and Member States. Those predetermined conditions must require Member States to undertake reforms in order to ensure that funds are used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy. Members reject, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform. All conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership. Any new conditionality must not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved. The resolution calls for the effectiveness and transparency of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and asks for the ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators, directly linked to the purpose of the funding, which measure, in particular, success in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and integration into high-quality employment. Parliament emphasises that the provision of grants 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.4) Budget, financial processes, reducing red tape, budgetary discipline and financial control: Parliament takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020). It calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters). Parliament calls for the adoption of stricter rules on the monitoring of irregularities in the use of the Structural Funds in respect of Member States. It also calls for the Commission to have, from the start of the next programming period, greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures. Members consider, in this connection, that there is an urgent need for simplification and clarification of the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control.5) Neighbourhood and enlargement policies: the resolution emphasises the importance of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for cohesion policy with regard to cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU. It calls on the Commission to look into the feasibility of establishing better synergies between ERDF initiatives, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF).Parliament reiterates its call for the Committee on Regional Development to be involved in and share responsibility for determining the form that these instruments will take in future.
- 2011/06/23 Debate in Parliament
- 2011/06/06 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
2011/05/26
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- #3068
-
2011/02/21
Council Meeting
-
3068
summary
The Council held a policy debate and adopted conclusions on a Commission report, presented in November 2010, on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU.The Council conclusions highlight the following points:(1) the need for continued pursuit of the objective of reduced disparities between the development levels of the various regions of the EU and underline the contribution cohesion policy has made towards the EU's competitiveness and growth objectives;(2) that cohesion policy should focus on a limited number of priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to allow for regional needs.The conclusions call for further discussions on the following Commission suggestions:the creation of a "development and investment partnership contract", which outlines an investment and development strategy addressing the priorities established under the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth;a list of priorities on which EU and national resources should focus;conditionalities and incentive mechanisms linked to cohesion policy.Comments made during the Council debate will provide input to the Commission in its preparation of a legislative package for structural funds after 2013, which is due to be published before the summer.The Council also adopted without discussion conclusions on a special report by the European Court of Auditors concerning the effectiveness of structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption, set out in document 6490/11.
-
3068
summary
-
2011/02/17
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Debate in Council: 3068
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0222/2011
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0316/2011
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 725 |
2011/2035(INI)
2011/03/28
CONT
57 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has for many years reported that payments in the area of cohesion are affected by an error rate exceeding 5%, although notes that this fell from 11% for the last discharge procedure, and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; calls in addition for clarification on the method of calculating errors, as discrepancies in figures provided by the European Court of Auditors and by the Commission lead to confusion and distrust of official figures;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. having regard to the significant impact of gender equality on economic, social and
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by introducing automatic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as well established evidence suggests a significant deficiency
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas in 16 Member States the risk of extreme poverty for women exceeds that for men, and whereas women are exposed far more than men to precarious working conditions, especially in rural areas,
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by introducing automatic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as evidence suggests a significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities; calls on the Commission also to put in place more robust plans for increasing the rate of recoveries of erroneous payments;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. Whereas equal opportunities between men and women and the gender mainstreaming principle are expressly indicated in the Regulations of the Structural Funds as transversal dimensions of the policy programming and implementation.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas, on average, half of the people participating in activities organised by the ESF within the framework of active employment policies are women,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Is finally of the opinion that this should be complemented by a catalogue of sanctions to be borne by Member States and final beneficiaries in case of irregularities
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca whereas policies on women's rights and gender equality can also make a significant contribution to territorial cohesion,
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Is finally of the opinion that this should be complemented by a catalogue of sanctions to be borne by Member States and final beneficiaries in case of irregularities
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas women are more numerous among those employed under precarious conditions (short-term contracts or part- time working);
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes that around 50 % of errors in spending on cohesion policy occur in the field of procurement; calls on the Commission to come forward with clear and transparent rules on the procurement procedure as a way of cutting down on the error rate;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Insists, in the context of the cohesion policy, on the need to increase financial support for action to facilitate a work-life balance for women and men,
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Insists, in the context of the cohesion policy, on the need to increase financial support for
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Insists, in the context of the cohesion policy, on the need to increase financial support for action to facilitate a work-life balance for women and men, which benefits social cohesion by promoting the role of the family and favouring parenthood and also economic cohesion by increasing the participation of women in the labour market;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that increased rates of employment are one of the main factors for growth; points out, likewise, that if the objective of a 75 % employment rate among people aged between 20 and 64 fixed in the Europe 2020 Strategy is to be achieved, it is necessary not only to reduce unemployment but also to integrate people who are currently inactive, many of them women, into the labour market;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the need to devise innovative measures to combat poverty aimed at women whose position is vulnerable, in particular immigrant women, women on their own and women with large families;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has for many years reported that payments in the area of cohesion are affected by an error rate exceeding 5% and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; notes, however, that the error rate is decreasing, as it has been shown by the ECA Annual Report;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. having regard to the significant impact of gender equality on economic, social and
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Regrets that the progress made towards achieving equality between men and women in the labour market has been very limited and stresses that most EU countries are still falling far short of implementing gender mainstreaming in their policies and carrying out systematic assessments of the impact of their policies from the gender perspective, as the Commission points out in the Fifth Cohesion Report;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that European Social Fund support should continue to focus primarily on raising employment levels, fin
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that European Social Fund support should continue to focus primarily on raising employment levels and reducing gender- based horizontal and vertical segregation in the labour market, including by cofunding individual economic initiatives by people outside the labour market, including women over the age of 45; Emphasises that gender perspective must not be used only in actions financed by the European social fund, but to all areas, which are supported by the Structural funds;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that European Social Fund support should continue to focus
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that European Social Fund support should continue to focus primarily on raising employment levels, including by cofunding individual economic initiatives by people outside the labour market,
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that European Social Fund support
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that, in the interests of their full integration into the labour market, persons employed under precarious conditions should be entitled in the same way as the unemployed to take part in employment stimulation programmes cofinanced from the structural funds;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses the important contribution made by the ERDF towards gender mainstreaming in all the relevant areas, in particular the granting of aid for training and education, for women entrepreneurs and for investment in facilities providing care for children, the elderly and other dependents;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that the European Social Fund, as part of its contribution to gender equality policies, should also pay particular attention to cofunding individual economic initiatives by people outside the labour market, including in particular women over the age of 45; believes that these initiatives are also likely to be especially valuable for the territorial cohesion objective;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls for the EAFRD Regulation to be amended to enable, as happens with the ESF, proactive measures to be taken in support of women in the 2014-2020 programming period, which was feasible in previous periods but not in the current one, and which will have very beneficial effects on female employment in rural areas;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is therefore of the opinion that supervisory and control systems should be
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas only 7% of ESF funding for the period 2000-2006 was used to finance measures to promote equality between women and men; whereas, over the same period, measures providing (direct or indirect) support for equal opportunities subsidised by the ERDF made up 21% of total funding,
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission to give appropriate consideration, in the context of the cohesion policy, to the vocational education of women and the fight against professional stereotypes, and on the Member States to create ‘lifelong learning programmes’ and to favour women's participation in sectors in which they are less represented;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission to give appropriate consideration, in the context of the cohesion policy, to the vocational education of women, and on the Member States to
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls likewise on the Commission to
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to make provision for specific measures involving existing resources and procedures - for example guarantee funds - to launch micro-financing and micro- credit initiatives geared mainly to women;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Supports the Commission in its reform of the cohesion policy, including by concentrating funding on a smaller number
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Supports the Commission in its reform of the cohesion policy, including by concentrating funding on a smaller number of priorities, with targeted measures and strategic objectives, on condition that gender equality in the labour market remains an ongoing priority;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Supports the Commission in its reform of the cohesion policy, including
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Calls on the Member States to establish gender mainstreaming and equal opportunities expertise units within the Managing Authorities, introduce gender impact assessment procedure during the selection phase and strictly monitor the outcomes and results of the implemented programs in terms of gender equality progress;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to uphold their commitment to gender equality, non- discrimination and access for people with disabilities to all stages of implementation of the programmes; expresses its concern at the fact that, even though all the programmes explicitly mention equality, it is not always taken into consideration when programmes are implemented, as has become clear when their application and results have been assessed;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas significant regional differences exist in female participation in the labour market, and whereas on average the participation of women is usually lower than that of men; whereas this circumstance can be partially explained by the fact that women find it more difficult to reconcile work and family, since it is generally women who are responsible for looking after children and other dependents,
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to ensure effective implementation of all financial instruments available at European level
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to set specific objectives for European mobility, education, training and the development of professional opportunities for women, in the sector devoted to transnational projects under the European Social Fund;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to lay down guidelines for using the European Social Fund in a way which will ensure that young women's specialist skills and abilities are improved in those sectors in which they have less of a presence, in keeping with the strategy for regional development of innovation and quality employment;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that a high percentage of errors in cohesion policy occur as a result of complex rules and procedures; calls on the Commission to simplify these, leading to a more efficient system; notes in addition that more attention should be paid to preventive control measures and a clear distinction should be made between errors, irregularity and fraud;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas significant regional differences exist in female participation in the labour market, and whereas on average the participation of women is usually lower than that of men, as is their pay,
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that a high percentage of errors in cohesion policy occur as a result of complex rules and procedures; calls on the Commission to simplify these, leading to a more efficient system; points out, however, that final figures can only be established for those periods that can be deemed finalised and that, to this end, only the 1993-1999 period has to date been finalised;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas significant regional differences exist in female participation in the labour market, and whereas on average the participation of women is
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that common rules on the management, eligibility, auditing and reporting of projects financed by the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund and of projects supporting the economic diversification of rural and fisheries areas under the EAFRD and the EFF would play a key role in simplifying the management of funds, reducing the risk of error and facilitating participation in cohesion policy programmes by smaller stakeholders, as well as easier absorption of available funding;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas women form a majority of the population with higher-education qualifications,
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that the Commission intends to require Member States' authorities to present a management declaration and an independent audit opinion thereon; welcomes this move but recalls that a declaration signed at ministerial level is the mid-term objective to counter the current lack of ownership; insists that the Commission and individual Member States must establish effective partnerships to ensure that both sides fulfil their responsibilities for the funds entrusted to them; notes that the Commission has limited instruments available and must of necessity rely on the resources of the Member States; calls on the Commission and Member States to cooperate in developing an effective control architecture which uses the resources of both in a complementary manner to maximise safeguards with the least bureaucracy;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas women form a majority of the population with higher-education qualifications,
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Invites the Commission, therefore, to take up its supervisory role by carrying out the accreditation process itself and by regularly monitoring the proper functioning of the accredited authorities during the lifetime of the programme; proposes that the Commission and individual Member States agree a detailed action plan for cooperation specifying how they will jointly ensure that the accredited bodies are properly scrutinised on an ongoing basis to ensure maximum efficiency, effectiveness and value for money;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas women form a majority of the population with higher-education qualifications,
source: PE-462.582
2011/04/20
REGI
569 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) - having regard to Article 3 (3) first paragraph of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which underlines that the EU shall work for a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 16 a (new) - having regard to the communication from the Commission on "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion" (COM (2010) 578),
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call to Member States for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution 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 the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call to Member States for special
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recognises the special status of outermost regions whose structural social and economic situation is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products as it is defined by the Treaty;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that larger urban centres face specific challenges because of the complexity of their social, economic and environmental tasks;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Recognises the specific needs of regions particularly disadvantaged in their development by virtue of demographic change; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of that type of region;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises that
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises that the Union
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises that the Union will be able to
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; takes the view that cohesion policy is not subordinated to the EU 2020 Strategy, whereas it contributes to a great extent to the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy objectives. Believes that a sound autonomous cohesion policy is the prerequisite for successful joint action by the EU as it contributes to reducing disparities at regional and local level and allows for a consolidation of strategic goals and local needs with potential on the ground; stresses that the cohesion policy with its horizontal character is contributing to all EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 17 a (new) - having regard to the conclusions of the European Council (October 29th/30th, 2009) referring to the need to reduce emissions of at least 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of February 4th, 2011 which reconfirmed this need,
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; underlines in this connection that targeting Structural Fund resources in a broad territorial approach must also serve to compensate for structural weaknesses in the stronger regions too, as well as to counteract potential weaknesses;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; hence sees a need for every type of infrastructure – transport, social, educational, health and environmental – to be developed to a similar standard in all the regions of the Member States, with cohesion policy providing the opportunity for that kind of development;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; calls, therefore, for cohesion policy to continue to apply in future to all of Europe’s regions;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; in this context, sees the endogenous potential of rural areas as offering an opportunity for development not only around agglomerations and big cities;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution 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 strategy; considers that an effective monitoring system should be established to coordinate the Europe 2020 strategy and cohesion policy;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and cities in response to the challenges of the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses however that cohesion policy is not merely an implementing tool for EU 2020. Continued focus on the core principles of cohesion policy will have the added value of sustaining the achievements of Europe 2020 even after the strategy has come to an end;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 17 b (new) - having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee from 14 July 2010 on "How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from the 2007-2013 cycle" (ECO/258),
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) 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; emphasises that ‘territorial cohesion’ is also relevant at the sub-regional level, particularly in urban areas (urban districts facing difficulties, uncontrolled urban sprawl), even within regions considered to be rich;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) 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 and stresses the advantage of the regional partnerships deciding on both the regional and social funds;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional (territorial) and sub-regional cohesion
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on regional
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Highlights the need for a more territorialised and integrated approach to unleash development potential on subregional and local level, to improve synergies and to address marginalised communities; calls for a common framework for local development approaches which achieves complementarities among the existing funds by allowing the local action groups to draw down funds from multiple sources with a territorial perspective and make better use of global grants;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees the possibility of macroregional strategies
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 17 a (new) - having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fifth Cohesion Report’, adopted on 1 April 2011,
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution 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 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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; nevertheless, no new instruments, financial resources or implementation structures should be created for these strategies;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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; economic, social and territorial cohesion; highlights the need to link territorial cooperation programmes more effectively with territorial strategies that are based on a shared commitment from regional stakeholders; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies – provided that their sphere of governance includes regional authorities and that they are given a practical content particularly as regards 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
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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; stresses that the Member States’ commitment is also decisive for the successful implementation of macro- regional strategies;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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, without this entailing an increase in the allocation of resources earmarked for these fields of inter- regional cooperation;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies 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 and the use of resources and development capacities; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to shared challenges s
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution 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 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses, however, the need to ensure that regions cannot be penalised, when developing their cohesion policies, by Member States' non-compliance with macroeconomic and financial objectives, particularly since these policies are essential to help reduce disparities between the regions of Europe and such penalties, which in many cases they have done nothing to incur, would serve only to exacerbate these disparities;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 19 a (new) Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will 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; calls for cross-border groupings to be involved in devising the operational programmes for cross-border programmes, on the basis of the EGTC Regulation;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will 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
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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 local development plans, and for
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities as motors for development in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 strategy objectives
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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; establishing a mutual win-win situation for both the towns and cities and their rural environments; Considers reinforced cohesion between urban and rural areas of special importance in addressing problems of areas populated by disadvantaged communities via Community instruments;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; encourages the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes and stresses the importance of the experiments currently under way; 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;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; calls for further support to urban areas in mainstream programmes as already exercised in the actual programming period; calls for an obligatory implementation of the mainstreaming; 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;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities - including those of the capital cities and regions - 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;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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 place- based integrated local development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to continue to allow Member States and regions to define urban areas as appropriate to them;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Re
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Rejects the use of obligatory quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for local and urban development, for the countryside or otherwise according to categorisation on the basis of population density or territorial function
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Rejects the use of quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Rejects the use of quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for urban development, for the countryside or otherwise according to categorisation on the basis of population density or territorial function; also regards as questionable the requirement to specify already at operational programme level which urban and other areas are to be eligible for support, and calls
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Rejects the use of quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for urban development, for the countryside or otherwise according to categorisation on the basis of population density or territorial function; also regards
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Rejects the
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas EU cohesion policy
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission to oblige the Member States to involve the relevant actors in key urban areas as well as local and regional authorities in all phases of cohesion policy decisions (strategic planning, drawing up and negotiating development and investment partnership agreements, and operational programmes);
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Emphasises that
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Emphasises that structural and cohesion policy must not be biased towards specific types of region; calls for urban- rural partnerships to be seen in their broader soci
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Emphasises that, in the context of structural and cohesion policy
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Emphasises that
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Points out that there are regions in Europe, such as some of the outermost regions, whose remoteness means that they have maritime borders that are not covered by the distance-related criterion for maritime borders for the purposes of cross-border cooperation; considers, however, that the integration of such regions with and their opening-up to geographical areas outside the EU is not and cannot be simply a function of their geographical remoteness, as the wealth of historical, linguistic and cultural bonds linking them to various parts of the world gives them a key role to play in the deepening of such relations, to the benefit of the EU's global presence, and they should therefore be able to participate in the cross-border cooperation programmes;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution 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 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that s
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds must be more strongly oriented towards the educational and socio-political challenges of the EU 2020 strategy
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds must be more strongly oriented towards the educational and socio-political challenges of the EU 2020 strategy; takes the view, however, that
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must be more strongly oriented towards 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
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must be more strongly oriented towards 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, while retaining existing national and regional competences and a specific regional policy link; in this connection, calls for greater involvement of training providers from the business world;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds must be more strongly oriented towards the educational and socio-political challenges of the EU 2020 strategy while keeping with the Treaty’s Cohesion as overarching EU objective; takes the view, however, that across-the-board ‘Europeanisation’ of the relevant policy areas would be a doomed endeavour purely
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 b (new) - having regard to Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which underlines that the Union shall pursuit the objective of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources as well as the fight against climate change on regional and international level,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the purpose of cohesion policy is to foster the development of an innovative and protective Europe of solidarity in the face of the challenges associated with globalisation,
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that support from the cohesion and structural funds must be more strongly oriented towards the educational and socio-political challenges of the EU 2020 strategy; takes the view, however, that
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Stresses, likewise, that cohesion policy cannot become a vehicle or instrument serving sectoral issues such as policies on research and development, industrial innovation and the fight against climate change, among others, as this would mean diluting its primary objective and placing constraints on its use to promote regions' development potential, which is essential in order to bring the most disadvantaged regions closer to the most developed regions;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debate, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of renewables
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debate, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of renewables and to ending the use of nuclear power; in that connection, supports the plans for decentralised energy strategies involving effective energy storage technologies in the regions;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debate, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of renewables; in that connection, supports the plans for
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debate, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of environmental technology and renewables; in that connection, supports the plans for decentralised energy strategies involving effective energy storage technologies in the regions;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees scope under the structural funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure, although such support must
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees scope under the Structural Funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Ab. whereas cohesion policy represents a genuine citizens’ issue, bringing Europe into people’s daily lives and making it tangible and visible across the EU,
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees scope under the structural funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure, although such support must be available only in 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
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees scope under the structural funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees scope under the Structural Funds for
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Also considers that cohesion policy has a responsibility to do what is needed to fill gaps and remove bottlenecks in a core TEN network of main routes of European significance, particularly in the border regions which have until now been badly neglected in this regard;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Calls, in the light of increasing tasks in the field of social inclusion, i.e. the Four Employment Guidelines, the support of the Decent and Good Work principles (as projected by the ILO), the fight against precarious and undeclared work, combating poverty, achieving gender equality and appropriate conditions for the reconciliation of work and private life, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to these challenges;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E- roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions; calls to take all necessary measures to ensure sufficient financing and guarantee timely implementation of priority TEN-T projects; suggests that ‘infrastructure’ be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support in connection with the third objective of European Territorial Cooperation;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the eco
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure 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
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. supports economic development and employment in SMEs and micro- enterprises; therefore requests that the fundamentals of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE), i.e. "Think Small First" and "Only once ", are considered as one of the bases of cohesion policy and considers that these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programs;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 α (new) 16 α. Encourages the application of the principle of the Transport Equivalent by means of ERDF resources and also national resources, given the added value of such measures in strengthening regional convergence, territorial cohesion and development activities such as tourism, which are important for remote regions, such as island regions;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty)
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to the cohesion and structural policies; takes the view that the EU 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to the cohesion and structural policies; takes the view that the EU 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the system of three current objectives (Convergence,
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training,
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the cohesion
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to cohesion
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Emphasises that investment in innovation and education can promote growth; points out, however, that the relevant infrastructure (transport, broad band internet, energy) and appropriate institutions (a balanced mix of public investment and fiscal policy consolidation with macro-economic measures, e- government services and cross-border learning)must provide effective support;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. States that the EU 2020 strategy is a key benchmark for the future of Europe and, ultimately, for European Union policies, in that it aims to consolidate the foundations of knowledge-based economic growth that is environmentally friendly and geared to social integration; affirms in this context that cohesion policy should play a key role in supporting the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution 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; in this connection, welcomes the greater use of innovative funding solutions such as EU project loans or public-private partnerships and other services offered by the EIB/EIF group;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that the development of basic infrastructure
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the cohesion and structural policies have proved flexible in crisis situations and have made a defining contribution to various national recovery and training programmes, and whereas it is important to maintain this flexibility,
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average);
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that supplementary indicators relevant for measuring social cohesion ( like unemployment rates, poverty, etc.) and territorial cohesion and continuity, as well as environmental indicators should applied; points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (G
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that the competent national authorities
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that the competent national authorities must
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas European structural policy contributes greatly to overcoming the economic and financial crisis, as it tends to be oriented towards innovation and removing disparities, strongly encouraging the European regions to upgrade infrastructure, increase regional innovation potential and boost sustainable ecological development,
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average), with reference to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006; points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution 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/
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that the competent national and regional authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind; stresses that the neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to target a
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind; stresses that the neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share – commensurate with the seriousness of their development problems – of the funding under
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement inside the Convergence objective for
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement under the Convergence objective for areas
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the Convergence objective (convergence regions)
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a dependable
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. In addition, calls for a time-limited safety net for cases where the loss of support in a Member State affects a large proportion of its population and also a significant part of the support within the previous programming period; sees a particular justification for an appropriate phasing out system for regions leaving the convergence support system, which despite having exceeded the 75% threshold face growing disadvantages (demographic change, migratory deficit, monolithic structure, unemployment, etc.)
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross- cutting approach
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgraded; stresses that the proven system of
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgraded; rejects any cut in funding for regions currently eligible for Objective 2; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed further;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for the effectiveness of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross- cutting approach, to be
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for maintaining of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment)
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Calls to ensure that more developed regions are able to modernise their social and economic capital and to address specific pockets of deprivation and of lack of economic development;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas gearing the Structural Funds to
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Takes the view that
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PE between the 75% and 90% rates would be at odds with the tried and tested principles of EU cohesion policy (to support the weakest and pool the inherent potential of the wealthier regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate category; nevertheless recalls the necessity to establish a dependable, appropriate, consolidated, reformed, and while needed longer phasing-out arrangement framed with a strategy for areas formerly eligible for maximum support under the convergence objective;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Fears that the transitional category proposed by the Commission will become a permanent feature and will act to the detriment of other regions; calls, therefore, for the transitional rules to be degressive, subject to a time limit and restricted to regions currently eligible for support under the 'convergence' objective;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) represent the strongest European added-value and thus need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter-
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%, which should be allocated to programmes rather than Member States therefore should not be subject to the capping rule; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the structural funds to be increased to
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%; calls on the commission to reserve a part of this increase for projects designed for enhanced synergies of cooperation between regions corresponding to different objectives (between objective 3 and 2 regions, objective 3 and 1 regions, objective 2 and 1 regions) as well as for projects exclusively designed to enhanced cooperation between objectives 1 regions; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions; calls for simplification of the implementing rules governing Objective 3 programs, based on the principle of proportionality, as well as for the development of a common set of eligibility rules, all of which are pre- conditions for these programs to become more effective and more visible;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the structural funds to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions; stresses the close involvement of decision-makers at local level, since programmes can be fleshed out only if this is guaranteed;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 c (new) - having regard to Article 2, Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Article 3(3), paragraph 2 of the TEU which underline equality between women and men as a fundamental principle of the European Union and also an objective of the Union,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the structural funds to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Considers that EGTCs represent a unique, highly valuable territorial governance instrument which responds to the needs for structured cooperation, and must be promoted as a tool to set up systems of cross-border governance, ensuring the ownership of the different policies at regional and local level;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance, integrated development programmes and jeopardise the regions' contribution to the achievement of the EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance and
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance and jeopardise the
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance and jeopardise the regions’ contribution to
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25.
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for the ESF
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution 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, a
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continue to foster social integration, economic growth and employment; regards the ESF as the Union’s most important labour-market and employment-policy tool; attaches particular importance to developing skills and mobility
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continue to foster social integration, economic growth and
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated; calls, furthermore, for better synergies between the EDF and the ERDF;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated; supports the introduction of an option for multi-fund OPs which would further facilitate integrated approaches;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated and allowing for the option of multi-fund programmes;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for common eligibility rules and for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be increased and facilitated;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to place-based integrated development planning – to be facilitated;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to place-based integrated development planning – to be facilitated;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas territorial cooperation aims to help territories and regions work together in tackling their common challenges, reduce the physical, administrative and regulatory barriers to such cooperation and lessen the ‘border effect’,
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Calls for the sake of increasing synergies for a greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) in the cohesion and structural policy creating more effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development, suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to work in a more integrated manner and would increase the effectiveness between these different funds; considers the national / regional development partnerships as an appropriate instrument to bring together the various policies; in this respect underlines the need to set clear objectives and to assess whether the goals were achieved in the Member States;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 c (new) 27c. Proposes that research and development policies be territorialised; therefore stresses the importance of adapting the cohesion policy and research and innovation policies to the specific needs of the territories; since a stronger involvement of regional and local authorities in the design and execution of the regional development funds and research and innovation programmes becomes crucial noticing the impossibility of applying the same strategy for development to all the regions;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for a common strategy framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, Framework Programmes, 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; highlights, in this respect, the importance of different funds working smoothly together in order to achieve results; calls for the Commission to make adjustments accordingly so that the relevant funds can, when possible, complete each other;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for a common strategy framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund,
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28.
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Calls for a new Common Strategic Framework to be adopted by Council and the Parliament according to ordinary legislative procedure on the basis of Article 177 of the TFEU;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29.
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered, and calls for
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Suggests, in this context, that
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate provision for its functions be included in the Social Fund; calls for consideration of whether a merger of the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund and the Regional Development Fund would be compatible with the European Treaties;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the partial failure of the Lisbon Strategy is due not to the inadequate implementation of cohesion policy but rather to
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the European Globalisation
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate provision for its functions be included in the Social Fund without overall impact in the cohesion heading within the EU budget; calls for consideration of whether a merger of the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Development Fund would be compatible with the European Treaties; points out that, as a rule, monies from the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund are spent on the same types of project;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Calls for the revision of the Regulation for cross border cooperation at the outside borders and the actual ENPI, integrating these funds into the Objective 3 for territorial cooperation;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 – subparagraph 1 (new) points out that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a complementary means of achieving the objectives of the European Social Fund, as it seeks to enable workers made redundant as a result of globalisation and the crisis to find work;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31.
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for investment priorities geared to the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and the achievement of other cohesion policy
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for investment priorities geared to the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and the achievement of other cohesion policy and structural policy objectives to be set at this stage; considers that the allocation of responsibilities between the various levels involved needs to be clarified, and calls for national and/or regional and local competences to be retained in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for a clear commitment for an appropriate involvement of partners in the development and investment contracts;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for key investment priorities
Amendment 354 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 a (new) 31a. Calls on States to take strict account of the partnership principle in the future partnership and development contracts which replace the former national strategic framework plans; considers that the quality of this strategic document will derive from compliance with the partnership principle; calls on the Commission to ensure that this multi-level partnership is a reality in the negotiation, drafting and assessment of these future partnership contracts;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Supports retention of the operational programmes as the most important tool for implementation of
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Supports retention of the operational programmes as the most important tool for implementation of the strategy papers in terms of concrete investment priorities; calls for clear and measurable objectives to be set in this respect and at the same time emphasises that it is necessary to abandon the principle of creating projects in response to declared challenges in favour of matching resources to specific projects;
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the partial failure of the Lisbon
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regions and of representatives of local authorities in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the structural fund regulation
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder, the local and region
Amendment 365 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Calls for the
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Supports the
Amendment 367 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Supports the
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Supports the
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution 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 lack of multi-level governance and of ownership of this strategy by the regional and local level, the effects of the financial crisis, imperfect implementation of the single market, slack budgetary discipline and inadequate macroeconomic framework conditions in individual Member States; whereas cohesion policy is not a mere delivery instrument of the EU 2020 Strategy but a permanent EU Treaty objective,
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Supports the system of thematic priorities that the Commission is proposing; points out that the lower the level of development in a Member State or region, the more wide-ranging the list of priorities there needs to be, taking into account specific regional development needs while ensuring that this thematic approach for programming Structural and Cohesion Funds cannot take place to the detriment of the integrated place- based approach;
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Supports the system of thematic
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these 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
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation, infrastructure and resource management and to be tailored in each case to regions’ specific needs; stresses in this connection that innovation must be given a broad interpretation in line with the Innovation Union flagship initiative; 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
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these 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;
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution 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 379 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that certain binding
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the partial failure of the Lisbon
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these 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
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover especially innovation, infrastructure and resource management and to be tailored in each case to regions' specific needs; stresses that it must be possible to suggest and pursue additional priorities on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for suggested priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverty;
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment, capacity building measures, guidance and simple and innovative forms available to the relevant administrative authorities including interlocutory bodies to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery; underlines the impact of successful partnership for reducing red tape of beneficiaries and that this should go hand in hand with training and empowering of “actors of change”; in this context underlines the importance of exchange of best practise among the regions;
Amendment 386 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery; asks the Commission to evaluate whether pilot areas could be established in order to test new regulations in smaller scale before the regulation is applicable to the rest of the regions in order to identify possible problems in the implementation;
Amendment 387 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked,
Amendment 388 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; stresses that this is extremely important for small and medium-sized undertakings in particular; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery;
Amendment 389 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the incidence of errors
Amendment 390 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be re
Amendment 391 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 a (new) 36a. Points out that the exchange of best practices between the regions must be further strengthened, in consideration of the fact that it helps pursuing the objectives of a better and more efficient use of the funds; calls for the creation and timely implementation of programmes favouring this type of exchange, following the example of the Erasmus for elected local and regional representatives, for which requests that it is swiftly put into effects;
Amendment 392 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 3 Incentives, conditionality, a focus on needs and results, co-financing and financing options,
Amendment 393 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 Amendment 394 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 395 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the
Amendment 396 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy
Amendment 397 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 398 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under investment
Amendment 399 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 a (new) - having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results4, __________________ 4 OJ L 391, 30.12.2006, p.1
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the incidence of errors and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably, structural policy
Amendment 400 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for
Amendment 401 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for
Amendment 402 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding
Amendment 403 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under the development and investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy as long as the following conditions are respected, that the conditionalities serve the increase of effectiveness and efficiency of cohesion policy, the involved actors in OP management have the possibility to influence conditionalities, those actors have the necessary competence and institutional capacity to carry out the required changes, and the involved actors have ownership towards the conditionalities and can relate to them; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditionalities should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership;
Amendment 404 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on
Amendment 405 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Stresses that gender responsive budgeting will make EU spending more effective; invites the European Commission to propose a procedure for introducing gender budgeting methods in the design and management of structural fund programmes beyond 2013 and to increase the gender competence of administrations on all relevant levels by promoting capacity building;
Amendment 406 #
Motion for a resolution 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 407 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Takes the view that new conditionality shall not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved; encourages development of consistent, standard systems of conditionality for both the ERDF and ESF that should be objectively assessable as well;
Amendment 408 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Supports the Commission's call for the macroeconomic conditionality linked to budgetary discipline to apply not only to the Cohesion Fund but to be extended to other structural and agricultural funds as well;
Amendment 409 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 b (new) 37b. Considers the Commission to be responsible for formulating conditionalities and overseeing their implementation, and proposes corresponding action plans for the Member States and regions;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the incidence of errors and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably, structural policy nonetheless remains an area with a continuing poor record in this respect, and some Member States still lack effective machinery for countering the misuse of funding and recovering money wrongly paid out, and whereas irregularities may not be reported, either through negligence or deliberately,
Amendment 410 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38.
Amendment 411 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a stronger focus on results, to be achieved through the ex-ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that such indicators must be few in number, that they must all be clearly defined, measurable and related directly to the impact of the funding, and that they should be established by agreement with the regions/Member States; recommends to improve project selection while building on experience gained in the regions/Member States also by introducing support tools such as NECATER that was developed by the French government and aims at reducing carbon emissions of projects and improving local and regional carbon accounting;
Amendment 412 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a stronger focus on results, to be achieved through the ex-ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that such indicators must be few in number, that they must all be clearly defined, measurable and related directly to the impact of the funding, and that they should be established by agreement with the regions/Member States; considers, however, that all instruments and criteria proposed to measure performance should maintain a qualitative vision of the programmes;
Amendment 413 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a stronger focus on results, to be achieved
Amendment 414 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a stronger focus on needs and results, to be achieved through the ex-ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that such indicators must be few in number, that they must all be clearly defined, measurable and related directly to the impact of the funding, and that they should be established by agreement with the regions/Member States;
Amendment 415 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) Amendment 416 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 Amendment 417 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39.
Amendment 418 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Calls for the indicators to concentrate on areas of impact with European added value
Amendment 419 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Calls for
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the incidence of errors and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably,
Amendment 420 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Calls for the indicators to concentrate on areas of impact with European added value (increases in productivity, research, transport services, regional growth and relevant environmental improvements); calls
Amendment 421 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 a (new) 39a. Calls for a limit to be placed on eligibility periods for regions which cannot show any significant improvements in their economic, social and environmental situation after several programming periods, despite maximum support;
Amendment 422 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 a (new) 39a. Considers that the indicators determining regional subsidies from the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund must be based on Eurostat’s most recent statistical data, so as to take full account of the impact of the crisis on the regions in economic and social terms;
Amendment 423 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for
Amendment 424 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for
Amendment 425 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy;
Amendment 426 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 427 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Regards public and private 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
Amendment 428 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 429 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 a (new) 40a. Calls on the Member States and regions to look ahead when programming co-financing appropriations and to boost them by means of financial engineering;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the existing system of cohesion and structural policy objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), combined with a multi-level governance approach and security to plan on the basis of reliable funding and an agreed time frame (seven years), has
Amendment 430 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. C
Amendment 431 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. C
Amendment 432 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. C
Amendment 433 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. C
Amendment 434 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. C
Amendment 435 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41.
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed
Amendment 437 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed
Amendment 438 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Considers that the maximum level of
Amendment 439 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the existing system of cohesion and structural policy objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), combined with a multi-level governance approach and security to plan on the basis of reliable funding and an agreed time frame (seven years), has basically proved its worth, but whereas there have been considerable delays in programme planning as a result of protracted financial and legislative negotiations in the Community decision- making process,
Amendment 440 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 Amendment 441 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 a (new) 41a. Supports the proposal of the Commissions to establish a performance reserve, which is to be spent on achieving particular results on the agreed priorities in the development and investment contract (DIC) calculated as potential contribution to achieve quantifiable results which are linked to EU targets; after approval in the midterm review the Commission will evaluate and reward the money to all those regions who have well met the targets as fixed in the OPs or even overachieved the priorities foreseen in the OPs; underlines that the DIC needs to define a correction mechanism in case of unexpected crisis which might impede to meet the targets;
Amendment 442 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 a (new) 41b. Calls for attention and further support to those entities that are effected by deep poverty and often tensed co- existence of majority-minority cultures at sub-regional levels; considers that such sub-regional entities can easily remain deep poverty pockets facing even stronger segregation even within regions that are not necessarily lagging behind the statistical averages; notes that concentrated efforts should be made for the development of these entities (e.g.: lower levels of required own resources for growth and job creating projects targeting specifically these entities; thorough technical assistance boosting up the pool of local human resources; encouragement for state aids with regard cost-sharing of projects; concentrated resources from ESF for facing the specific problems of the mass of long term unemployed and unqualified workers via developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs and by paying close attention to cross-cutting priorities such as the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups suffering not only from social and economic exclusion, but also spatial segregation);
Amendment 443 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Calls, in the case of direct subsidies to undertakings,
Amendment 444 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Calls, in the case of direct subsidies to undertakings, for it to be recognised that Cohesion Policy funding
Amendment 445 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 446 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 447 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 448 #
Motion for a resolution 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 also by fixing the durability of operations at 10 years, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investments including the exclusion of large enterprises from direct subsidies;
Amendment 449 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Calls, in the case of direct subsidies to undertakings, for it to be recognised that
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the existing system of cohesion and structural policy objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), combined with a multi-level governance approach, horizontal objectives and security to plan on the basis of reliable funding and an agreed time frame (seven years), has basically proved its worth, but whereas there have been considerable delays in programme planning as a result of protracted financial and legislative negotiations,
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution 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 grant support for private 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
Amendment 451 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Recognises the leverage effect of new financial instruments and their potential to mobilise investment, supports increased financing
Amendment 452 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 453 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43.
Amendment 454 #
Motion for a resolution 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);
Amendment 455 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 456 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 457 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 458 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Recognises the leverage effect of new financial instruments and their potential to mobilise investment, subject to administrative simplification and the provision of legal certainty regarding their creation and termination, 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; 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 459 #
Motion for a resolution 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; calls for the instruments to be adaptable to ensure they are viable and feasible for all regions and cities; 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 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the existing system of cohesion
Amendment 460 #
Motion for a resolution 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; takes the view that at the end of a funding period, at the latest, responsibility for how the funds are spent
Amendment 461 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 44 44. Emphasises that the provision of subsidies must always be retained as an option and that
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution 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 463 #
Motion for a resolution 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; considers that subsidies should continue to dominate in regions lagging behind;
Amendment 464 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45.
Amendment 465 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45. Considers that the EIB must assume a stronger role in the financing of
Amendment 466 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45. Considers that the EIB must assume a stronger role in the financing of
Amendment 467 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 a (new) 45a. Believes that account should be taken, in the context of cohesion policy, of the need for flexibility in relation to the outermost regions, and the use of cohesion policy instruments should be adapted to their fragile economies, with due regard for the importance of their small and medium-sized undertakings and the need for competitiveness and equal opportunities so that their economies can be a part of the EU internal market;
Amendment 468 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European structural-policy objectives;
Amendment 469 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European structural-policy objectives;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F Amendment 470 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European
Amendment 471 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line
Amendment 472 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Rejects quotas or obligations for global grants, however, as they could run counter to the setting of overriding priorities tailored to the regions' needs;
Amendment 473 #
Motion for a resolution 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 474 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Takes the view that cohesion policy must focus on support for small and medium-sized enterprises, giving them greater access to funding, in view of the obvious advantages of job creation in terms of growth; calls on the Commission to take full advantage of the ‘Small Business Act’ initiative;
Amendment 475 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Welcomes the effective cooperation between the EIB and the Commission in implementing three joint initiatives – JESSICA, JEREMIE and JASMINE – which should increase the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy and improve the functioning of the Structural Funds; calls on the Commission to continue to actively adopt joint initiatives with the EIB, particularly in the field of cohesion policy and to ensure financial support for SMEs;
Amendment 476 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions for funding so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters);
Amendment 477 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions for funding so that the EU, through a mainstreamed Globalisation Adjustment Fund and Solidarity Fund can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters);
Amendment 478 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions for funding so that the EU, through a mainstreamed Globalisation Adjustment Fund and Solidarity Fund, can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters);
Amendment 479 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions for funding so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas, however, a significant threshold effect exists between regions with comparable levels of development but benefiting from very different levels of aid – growth regions exceeding the threshold of 75% of average per capita GDP for the EU in receipt of more financial support than stagnating regions above that threshold – and whereas this represents a real problem in terms of fairness between Europe’s regions,
Amendment 480 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget as currently structured, underpinned by the regulations governing the various funds,
Amendment 481 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget a
Amendment 482 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget as currently structured, underpinned by the regulations governing the various funds, has proved effective in the implementation of cohesion
Amendment 483 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 49. Regards the integration of the EU 2020 objectives into the existing system of objectives and funds as
Amendment 484 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 49. Regards the integration of the EU 2020 objectives into the
Amendment 485 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 49. Regards the integration of the EU 2020 objectives into the existing system of objectives and funds as entirely feasible;
Amendment 486 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 49.
Amendment 487 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as
Amendment 488 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy
Amendment 489 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas the completely free movement of goods, services and workers is the most effective regional policy and tends in itself to help smooth out regional disparities in development,
Amendment 490 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for it
Amendment 491 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for
Amendment 492 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Regards post-2013 cohesion
Amendment 493 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 a (new) Amendment 494 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 Amendment 495 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 Amendment 496 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 Amendment 497 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51.
Amendment 498 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that are falling significantly short of the EU stability criteria requirements and also have a poor record on the use of monies from the Structural Funds, for a proposal
Amendment 499 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 8 a (new) - having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC),
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be essential,
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that
Amendment 501 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that
Amendment 502 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that
Amendment 503 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Calls, in respect of Member States that are falling significantly short of the EU stability criteria requirements and also have a poor record on the use of monies from the structural funds, for a proposal for the automatic application of more stringent rules in order to monitor the use of such monies in accordance with the law and the relevant objectives; calls also for specific penalty mechanisms in the case of persistent irregularities and for consistent recovery of any undue payments of structural fund support;
Amendment 504 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 – subparagraph 1 (new) is opposed to structural funding being made subject to any kind of macroeconomic conditions connected with the Stability and Growth Pact since this would conflict with the very aims of cohesion policy; in the interests of enhancing programming credibility and achieving tangible results, insists on the introduction of appropriate sets of conditions, verified ex-ante and based on a place-based approach to policies, that cover all the institutional, administrative, regulatory, planning and project-related requirements needed to ensure an effective implementation of the programmes;
Amendment 505 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities
Amendment 507 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities or entities that will assume exclusive responsibility for the proper administration of monies from the structural funds;
Amendment 508 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Calls on the Member States/
Amendment 509 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities that will assume exclusive responsibility for the proper administration of monies from the
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms, as well as specific structural problems
Amendment 510 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 a (new) Amendment 511 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 Amendment 512 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 Amendment 513 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies;
Amendment 514 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Envisages that the Commission will, in
Amendment 515 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies; envisages linkage between, on the one hand, successful accreditation and a reduction in the error rate and, on the other, entitlement to simplified and less frequent reporting; calls on the Commission to show a greater commitment to strategic planning, assessment and implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 516 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; considers in this connection that simplification and clarification in the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control, are urgently necessary; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies; envisages linkage between, on the one hand, successful accreditation and a reduction in the error rate and, on the other, entitlement to simplified and less frequent reporting;
Amendment 517 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53.
Amendment 518 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Envisages that the Commission will, in future, have a greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or
Amendment 519 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 a (new) 53a. Takes the view that in order to improve the effectiveness of the operational programmes, greater use should be made of competitive procedures for project selection within the regions;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas a comprehensive European
Amendment 520 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 b (new) 53b. Calls for significantly stricter standards for budgetary control and proof of compliance with funding rules to be applied to Member States whose auditing bodies do not pass the accreditation procedures;
Amendment 521 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for the more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to
Amendment 522 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for the more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to be subject to significantly reduced reporting and auditing requirements; calls for account to be taken of the major significance for regional development of small and medium-sized undertakings, and of their needs particularly in connection with the implementation and control procedures;
Amendment 523 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for the more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis where this system is appropriate; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to be subject to significantly reduced reporting and auditing requirements;
Amendment 524 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54a. Calls on the Commission to maintain an annual public 'failure scoreboard' of inadequate and/or late execution of reporting and disclosure requirements and of irregularities, abuse and fraud in the use of monies from the cohesion fund; calls for this information to be broken down by Member State and Fund;
Amendment 525 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54a. Is concerned at the fact that red tape is preventing small companies and organisations from gaining access to structural funding; calls for the relevant rules and technical documentation to be made as clear as possible, and asks the Commission and the Member States to set up technical working parties with a view to identifying appropriate simplification measures;
Amendment 526 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54a. Calls for a substantial reduction in the administration and bureaucracy involved in cohesion policy and structural policy at all levels of activity, inter alia by switching to electronic procedures;
Amendment 527 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 b (new) Amendment 528 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 c (new) 54c. Calls for annual clearance of accounts procedures to be established for the new programming period that also cover multiannual programmes;
Amendment 529 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 d (new) 54d. Considers more efficient e- government solutions (harmonised forms) to be necessary for the entire implementation and monitoring system; calls for exchange of experience between the Member States coordinated by the Commission and for coordinated implementation through groupings of administrative authorities and auditing bodies;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas a comprehensive and well- funded European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms, as well as specific structural problems and geographical disadvantages, and it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 530 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 e (new) 54e. Considers that the transparency provisions (obligation to disclose the final beneficiary) are a necessary instrument for experts, the public and policy-makers to evaluate the conformity with objectives and the legality with which the structural funds have been used; Calls for the description to be supplied not only in the relevant national language but also in one of the three working languages (English, French or German) and recommends further harmonisation of the information required;
Amendment 531 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 Amendment 532 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 55.
Amendment 533 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 55.
Amendment 534 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 55. Supports the Commission’s proposal that national authorities should not receive reimbursement until the EU funding has been paid out to the beneficiaries; envisages that this will speed up payment procedures and will be a crucial incentive to carry out stringent national auditing; notes, however, that cashflow problems could potentially arise at Member State or
Amendment 535 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 a (new) 55a. Regards the Commission’s call for payments to be more closely geared to results as illogical in that results will only be achieved by financing the projects in the first place, is concerned that the monitoring is likely to be highly bureaucratic, but regards as conceivable requirements which make payments contingent on proven consistency between the projects and, say, EU 2020 strategies;
Amendment 536 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 a (new) 55a. Considers that while reimbursement should arrive after EU funding has paid out in the projects, no extra burdens should be put on the beneficiaries in terms of interest rates that do not reflect the low risk factor of such loans by any banks or other financial institutions;
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 b (new) 55b. Considers the offsetting of improperly received monies that have not been paid back against current funding pledges to be an effective instrument for disciplining Member States with a poor record;
Amendment 538 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 c (new) 55c. Calls for diversification of the penalty mechanisms, including among other aspects a bonus system for those Member States which comply with the implementation requirements, in particular through administrative concessions;
Amendment 539 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. whereas the values and principles of the European Union as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon (including democracy, human rights, solidarity, equality between women and men and social justice) should set the framework for cohesion policy and be reflected in programming and evaluation,
Amendment 540 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 Amendment 541 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. S
Amendment 542 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Supports the Commission’s proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied
Amendment 543 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Supports the Commission’s proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically except in the first year of funding
Amendment 544 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Supports the Commission’s proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically except in the first year of
Amendment 545 #
Motion for a resolution 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 except for cross-border programmes and that derogations from it should be abolished; supports, indeed, the application of an N+3 rule in the case of cross-border programmes, in order to take account of the slower administrative processes resulting from the linguistic and cultural challenges they face; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high-
Amendment 546 #
Motion for a resolution 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 that any other derogations
Amendment 547 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Supports the Commission's proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically possibly at the level of Member States allocations to provide for more flexibility, except in the first year of funding and that derogations from it should be abolished; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high- quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;
Amendment 548 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 a (new) 56a. Considers that the automatic decommitment rule should be adapted to the additional administrative burden required by the new provisions related to strategic programming, results based orientation and ex ante conditionality;
Amendment 549 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution 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 550 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 57 57. Emphasises the importance in terms of
Amendment 551 #
Motion for a resolution 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; is convinced of the ultimate necessity to reincorporate the ENPI cross-border cooperation programmes into the cohesion policy's Territorial Cooperation Objective; 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; calls on the Commission to look into the feasibility of establishing better synergies between ERDF initiatives, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF);
Amendment 552 #
Motion for a resolution 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 553 #
Motion for a resolution 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; takes note of the current problems in the implementation of the programme and asks the Commission to evaluate whether the already functioning structures found within the regional policies could be applied also to the administration of ENPI; sees infrastructure (especially 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;
Amendment 554 #
Motion for a resolution 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; underlines the role that macroregions can play in this context;
Amendment 555 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 556 #
Motion for a resolution 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 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 558 #
Motion for a resolution 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; draws the attention to the implementation problems in the Member States; reminds of the original purpose of the IPA instrument, especially those aimed at financing capacity building and institution-building and supporting the countries' preparations for the implementation of the Community's cohesion policy in order to prepare the candidate countries for full implementation of the Community acquis at the time of accession; calls the Commission to identify the problems in the current functioning of the IPA instrument;
Amendment 559 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 58 a (new) 58a. Considers it extremely important to provide support for regions bordering regions in non-EU states both under the cohesion policy and under the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, especially in the fields of the management of emergency situations, environmental protection and economic development;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Amendment 560 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 59 59. Reiterates its call for the Committee on Regional Development to be involved in and share responsibility for determining the form that
Amendment 561 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 Amendment 562 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 Amendment 563 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 Amendment 564 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Draws attention – with up-to-date figures in support of its contention – to the
Amendment 565 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 – footnote Amendment 566 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Draws attention – with up-to-date figures in support of its contention – to the extremely severe financial consequences for cohesion policy of the accession of new Member States;11 emphasises that, from a cohesion policy point of view, the Union’s capacity to absorb new members would, on the basis of these figures, be severely overstretched; calls for use of the IPA to be
Amendment 567 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Draws attention – with up-to-date figures in support of its contention – to the extremely severe financial consequences for cohesion policy of the accession of new Member States11 ; emphasises that, from a cohesion policy point of view, the Union's capacity to absorb new members would, on the basis of these figures, be severely overstretched;
Amendment 568 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 Amendment 569 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 61 61. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H b (new) Hb. whereas towns and cities are places of wealth creation, but also places where the most acute economic and social problems are concentrated,
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas supporting and developing the convergence regions in the long term has a positive impact on the
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 a (new) - having regard to its resolution of 22 September 2010 on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (P7_TA- PROV(2010)0341),
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution 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, territorial, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of a
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. 1. a) (new) Stresses that the European added value of cohesion policy is uncontested, as this policy sustainable growth as well as demonstrating European solidarity, aiming at reducing disparities between the levels of development of European regions, it constitutes a well-established mechanism of delivering growth and jobs and has been one of the Union’s most significant, visible, and successful policies for decades; points out, however, that a modern cohesion policy must undertake a number of reforms, in particular the simplification of policy implementation, and promote synergies with other policies and instruments on the ground;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that cohesion policy should promote the EU's economic, social and territorial cohesion, which is essential for the future of European integration, granting equal opportunities to its regions by mitigating their main handicaps and promoting their development potential, which is the only way of reducing structural imbalances and competitive asymmetries in the EU;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Calls for cohesion
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 b (new) - having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document "Regions 2020 - an Assessment of Future Challenges for EU Regions" (SEC(2008)2868),
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of European integration, economic growth, research, environmental protection, culture, resource management, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross- border development and this would not have been realised without the
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental and climate protection, resource management, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been realised without the European stimulus;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regional level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental protection, resource management, sport, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been realised without the European stimulus;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises however that there is a pressing need to address the accuracy and availability of data on regional participation in Framework Programmes and other EU research and innovation funding programmes, to enable local and regional authorities to benchmark their performance at EU level, and to enable structural weaknesses in performance to be identified accurately;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance as
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance and shared management as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees, in the sphere of territorial cohesion, the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 a (new) - having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds,
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; the new rules should require Member States to involve, in a structured and systematic way, the local and regional level in planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; the new regulation should allow local and regional authorities to take part at the decision-making implementation, monitoring and evaluation process;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines that gender mainstreaming is a horizontal principle of all structural funds and investments, therefore its implementation is a prerequisite of future funding and has to be fixed in the programme documents;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing as a result of the economic and financial crisis – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions’ levels of development and promoting the development potential of European regions, thereby contributing to the Europe 2020 Strategy goals in the area of economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions' levels of development; regardless of the member state in which they are located;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 a (new) - having regard to its Resolution of 14 December 2010 on achieving real territorial, social and economic cohesion within the European Union – a sine qua non for global competitiveness? (Texts adopted P7_TA(2010)0473),
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and among/in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions' levels of development;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; observes that, inter alia, sparsely populated northern regions suffer from permanent disadvantages such as sparse population, long distances and northern conditions; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution 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 the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions) through more favourable terms for investments in these regions, either by direct assistance or by tax exemptions;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment, paying particular attention to their permanent handicaps but also to their potential; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and special budget funding to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution 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, provided they are effective and bring European added value, in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
source: PE-462.896
2011/04/27
EMPL
99 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 (new) – having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Article 3(3), second paragraph TEU, which underlines equality between women and men as a fundamental principle of the European Union and also an objective of the Union,
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s fifth report on economic, social and territorial
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, which proposes directions that policy in this area might take in the future, in particular, linking it to the Europe 2020 strategy, with a common strategic framework which would translate the Europe 2020 objectives into investment priorities; stresses that the three constituent pillars of the 2020 strategy (smart, sustainable and inclusive growth) must be complementary;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to improve coordination between the cohesion fund and the European Social Fund by means of a common strategic framework; considers it especially important, however, that the specific objectives and flexibility of individual funds should not be restricted at implementation level and that the overall administrative burden should be drastically reduced;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Rejects the imposition of conditions on the payment of structural funds – particularly the ESF – for implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy or other EU policies;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies for the necessary social and ecological reconstruction of the EU and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities, such as
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities,
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 a (new) – having regard to the Communication from the Commission Europe 2020 - A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM(2010)2020) and its targets and Flagship initiatives,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities, such as in access to training, employment and education;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities, such as in access to employment and education, paying special attention to the most disadvantaged micro-regions within macro-regions;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Insists that the European Social Fund must remain part of cohesion policy; only in this way can integrated strategies for resolving economic and social problems be developed and implemented;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Stresses the need to include the gender perspective in the regulations and in the application of all Community funds and draws particular attention to the ESF, which must have sufficient capacity to promote policies on equality, permanent high-quality employment and fair income redistribution;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Firmly believes that coordinating plans and programmes between regional, national and European levels has proved worthwhile and insists that this be continued;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Warns that cohesion policy and the associated expenditure should be used to bring about sustainable economic, social, environmental and territorial development and cannot simply be a financial instrument, thereby safeguarding its objectives and avoiding negative consequences for economic and social cohesion;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Welcomes the fact that operational programmes (OPs) covering all target areas have also been set up at national level for the ESF for the first time in some Member States for the 2007-2013 funding period;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) 2e. Stresses the fact that the Member States and regions must be given sufficient freedom within the operational programme to orientate their range of measures to their specific challenges and long-term regional development strategies, taking into account national and regional characteristics;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 b (new) – having regard to the communication from the Commission on "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion" (COM (2010)758),
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 f (new) 2f. Calls for a sharp increase in investment in the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation, since they maintain and increase European competitiveness; in this context, welcomes the considerable investment in the knowledge triangle from the ESF and the ERDF which is taking place in many Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market and social policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion and therefore calls for a significant increase in the funds available to the ESF;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies, in particular those which are preventive and local, and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion, particularly for the most disadvantaged groups such as the Roma people;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion, which means that the funding allocated to it needs to be increased significantly;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion; points, in this connection, to the need for cohesion policy to be continued;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 c (new) – having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and its entry into force on 21.01.2011, according to the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 on the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010/48/EC),
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion; considers that, in order to be used profitably, the ESF must focus on investing in skills, lifelong training – also taking into account the new key competences related to sustainable development – and occupational redeployment, the smooth operation of the labour market, creating job opportunities, social conditions, research and innovation to facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy, with a view to promoting employability, productivity, growth, fair pay, quality of life, and employment in Europe, and, lastly, on measures to combat poverty and achieve social inclusion;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion; takes the view that this Structural Fund needs to be included in the common strategic framework, without, however, altering its specific operating rules and provisions; calls on the Commission to strengthen the role of the ESF and raise its profile;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers the fight against discrimination in the labour market, whether related to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability or place of residence crucial for the promotion of genuine equality of opportunities; notes that increasing the employment rate of women is crucial for reaching the employment target of the EU 2020 Strategy and that therefore barriers to women’s labour market participation must be fully addressed; emphasises that the ESF should provide adequate resources to tackle gender inequalities in the labour market and that the European Regional Development Fund must provide adequate financing for care infrastructure;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that the economic crisis has further increased the urgent need for measures in the sectors covered by the ESF, in particular to promote employment, occupational redeployment, social inclusion, and poverty reduction;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the effectiveness of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and to this end considers that ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the effectiveness of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and to this end considers that ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the effectiveness of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the effectiveness of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and to this end considers that ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators is needed; supports the proposal of the European Commission to make the allocation of ESF money dependant on ex-ante conditionality, including a precondition regarding the transposition of EU legislation and EU objectives which are indispensable for the success of ESF measures as well as structural reforms and adequate capacities in the administrations;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the effectiveness and transparency of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and to this end considers that ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators is needed;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Underlines that still today the invaluable experience of the community initiative EQUAL is relevant, especially regarding the combination of local and regional measures and the EU-wide exchange of best practices; is therefore of the opinion that the activities of the ESF need to take this experience into account, with special emphasis on the following aspects: participation of target groups, integration of migrants, including asylum seekers, combating discrimination, identification and integration of relevant political challenges, innovative and experimental methods, procedures for transnational cooperation as well as administration under the leadership of non-governmental actors;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 d (new) – having regard to the Council Conclusions of 6 December 2010 "Employment policies for a competitive, low-carbon, resource-efficient and green economy",
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes the view that measures to improve the effectiveness of the ESF should primarily be based on incentives rather than penalties;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Underlines the necessity of integrating gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting as horizontal principles of all structural funds and investments; states that therefore gender related statistics should be a prerequisite of future funding and clearly fixed in the DIC;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for the most vulnerable for integration into the job market, particularly by
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to i
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action, to make the allocation of funding under the ESF more transparent and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 e (new) – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 July 2010 on "How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from the 2007-2013 cycle" (ECO/258),
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers and firms adapt their skills to the needs of the job market;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting up lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market; stresses the need of providing tailor-made assistance for the most vulnerable groups to improve their employability;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls for full account to be taken of the experience of the social partners, in particular the trade unions, and social NGOs and for formal steps to draw on that experience to be made compulsory at all stages of the planning, implementation and assessment of the ESF and the other Structural Funds;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Rejects any move to introduce impact indicators, since the real impact of measures is often only felt some considerable time after their implementation has been completed and is therefore difficult to measure;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Takes the view that the failure to achieve targets should not be penalised by cuts in funding, since this might result in unrealistically low targets being set or in decisions being taken not to support high- risk groups; points out that in the context of ESF funding, for example, there is a real danger of social integration measures being targeted on groups which are highly likely to achieve such integration;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Takes the view that the eligibility rules should continue to be set at national level;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better harmonisation between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved, in particular for the sake of the implementation of complex programmes combating exclusion of the most disadvantaged social groups;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better harmonisation between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved; maintains, in the light of the experience acquired, that the existing rule on overlapping of the ERDF and the ESF is an eminently suitable way to simplify fund deployment, in particular for local integrated projects, and enhance synergies, and believes that this arrangement should continue to apply; calls on the Commission to strengthen the role of the ESF within the future Structural Fund architecture in order to make for better implementation of integrated measures; believes, as regards the future organisation of the Structural Funds, that the ESF should continue to be governed, within a framework common to all the Funds, by its own rules, modus operandi, and financing arrangements;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 f (new) – having regard to the study from 24 January 2011 published by the European Commission, Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities on "Evaluation of the European Social Fund’s support to Gender Equality",
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better harmonisation between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved; calls, therefore, for an approximation of the rules governing the provision of funding under the ERDF and the ESF;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better harmonisation between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved; a better coordination with the EAFRD and the EU horizontal programmes, such as CIP, 7FP, etc ., is also an important issue, especially in the areas of training and qualification;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that better harmonisation, greater flexibility and more scope for the transfer of funds between the various Structural Funds should be achieved and that in particular the synergies between the ESF and the ERDF should be improved;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6bis. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that information about access to the European Social Fund is disseminated to more useful effect among the target groups and that outcomes are publicised more widely;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6α. Stresses that, in ensuring the maximum effectiveness of cohesion policy, both in terms of development and strengthening social cohesion, the level of co-funding should be reviewed so that it better reflects the level of development of action plans and the specific characteristics of beneficiaries;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Underlines that cross financing has proven its worth for the integrated strategies for local development and should therefore be continued;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Believes that, in strengthening the social effectiveness of cohesion policy, it is necessary to strengthen the representation of local and regional stakeholders and social partners in both the design and implementation of cohesion policy at national level and encourages Member States to work to this end;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to reducing the bureaucratic burden for the beneficiaries and developing innovation and
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to developing innovation and the capacity to create SME projects, which are some of the main job creators; adds that SMEs deplore the difficulties they experience in accessing funding and the expenditure, particularly administrative costs, that they incur as a result of procedures;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 g (new) – having regard to the work of European Community of Practice on Gender Mainstreaming, funded by the European Commission and dedicated to integrating the gender dimension into the European Social Fund programmes,
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to developing innovation and the capacity to create SME projects, which are some of the main job creators, or an entrepreneurial activity;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to developing the research and development sector, innovation and the capacity to create SME projects, which are
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to developing innovation and the capacity to create SME and independent entrepreneur projects, which are some of the main job creators;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7bis. Calls for the open method of coordination to be strengthened and for better cooperation and exchanges of information to be established among national, regional, and local authorities where cohesion policy is concerned;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Believes that any future strategy for the use of funds will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of governance, which are capable of gearing strategic objectives to specific territorial characteristics on the basis of structured dialogue with stakeholders as a whole, organisations that promote gender rights, social partners, non-governmental organisations, and, moreover, financial and banking institutions; maintains that when policy objectives are defined, sufficient space must be allowed for regional and local needs; considers that, to enable funds to be used more effectively, it is vitally important to secure the active involvement of the social partners through ongoing social and territorial dialogue;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers that, in order to ensure that it does not encourage business relocation within the EU, public aid granted under the Structural Funds must be conditional on the conclusion of long-term contracts with undertakings covering location, duration and employment;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to ensure more capacity building measures, including gender mainstreaming, and to put in place guidance and simple streamlined procedures for the relevant administrative authorities, including those that act on the level of project selection, to assess the gender impact of projects;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Does not believe that multinationals or large firms should be able to receive support from the ESF or ERDF, and accordingly calls for the ERDF and ESF regulations to be amended so that business support can be given only to small and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures (provisions for access and management) and reduce excessive administrative costs
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure greater flexibility in the financial implementation of programmes, simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and the number of other obstacles to achieving the EU’s objectives for growth and job creation
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and the number of other obstacles to achieving the EU’s objectives for growth and job creation; 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 the move towards simplification along these lines be made clearly apparent to the public, the aim being to ensure that information requests do not go beyond the minimum required.
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. In accordance with the 'Report on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion (2010/2276(INI))', calls on the Commission and the Member States to put special emphasis on the role of the Cohesion and Structural Funds in the integration of the Roma; thus recommends the introduction of administrative tools which ensure that development projects contribute to the reduction of inequalities between the Roma and non-Roma communities - similarly to the compulsory use of horizontal approach regarding environmental sustainability and gender equality;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Takes note of the fact that due to very low implementation rates, the evaluation of transnational measures is insufficient and critical; concludes from the evaluation that there is a need for an innovation fund on European level to be able to intensively foster the exchange of best practice examples amongst local and regional actor; calls for a renewed innovation fund for the fight against poverty, antidiscrimination, social inclusion and employment of the European Commission;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls for cross-financing between the ERDF and the ESF pursuant to Article 34 of the General Structural Fund Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1083/2006) to be greatly simplified and facilitated so that more integrated concepts can be developed;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines that, the post 2013 Cohesion Policy shall take into account a number of major challenges, including social imbalances in urban areas, demographic changes and social exclusion;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls on the Commission to strengthen both sanctions and positive incentives for Member States to implement Article 16 of Council Regulation 1083/2006(EC) and to respect its legally binding requirements; to reinforce anti-discrimination provision in the future Cohesion Policy 2014-2020; to monitor and assess correct implementation of the European funding programmes and use of European Social Fund;
source: PE-462.830
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| other/0/dg/title |
Old
Regional PolicyNew
Regional and Urban Policy |
2015-01-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/subject/1 |
Old
4.70.02 Cohesion, Cohesion FundNew
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund |
2014-11-09Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|