Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | EMPL | HYUSMENOVA Filiz (ALDE) | |
| Lead | REGI | VAUGHAN Derek (S&D) | ŁUKACIJEWSKA Elżbieta Katarzyna (PPE), HYUSMENOVA Filiz (ALDE), DELLI Karima (Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich (ECR), OMARJEE Younous (GUE/NGL) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2013/01/15
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0002/2013
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 495 to 48 with 21 abstentions a resolution on optimising the role of territorial development in cohesion policy. It recalls that the territorial dimension is a cross-cutting aspect of cohesion policy and is now recognised by the Lisbon Treaty as a fundamental EU objective. Overarching concerns: strengthening the territorial objective: despite significant progress towards convergence in the EU, Members emphasise that disparities (e.g. in terms of accessibility) still exist, and are continuing to widen, between EU regions. The budget for cohesion policy post-2013 must be at least maintained at its current level in order to ensure that support continues to reach areas in need of economic and social regeneration in all regions of the EU. Parliament welcomes the Commission’s proposals to focus on measurable results delivered by cohesion policy and highlights the need for a results-led system to include flexibility at national, regional and local level, so that results-led systems are region-specific. It endorses the Commission’s overarching proposals throughout the CPR, which sets out common rules applicable to all five European funding programmes (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EARDF), European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)) that are designed to implement cohesion, rural and fisheries policies. Flexibility should extend to greater provision for projects to operate across different funds covered by the CPR. This increased flexibility would help to simplify project delivery and increase the complementary and cross-cutting aspects of European funding. Using other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020), possibly in alignment with cohesion policy funding, should also be considered when working towards Europe 2020 objectives. Parliament recognises a simplified multi-level governance system as integral to the decision-making process under cohesion policy, and calls on the Commission to ensure that this is reflected in the development of clear and well-defined partnership contracts. It highlights the importance of the European code of conduct for Member States, regions and local authorities during the preparation, implementation and monitoring of funding programmes. Greater integration of European funds for 2014-2020: on this issue, Members welcome the above-mentioned CPR proposals which encourage better coordination and integration of funding programmes, and stress that a more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with adequate capacity-building and the involvement of social and civil society partners at local and regional level, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe’s long-term social and economic challenges. Members also emphasise that, given the characteristics shared by the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020, LIFE+), the effectiveness of European funding could be enhanced by exploring the potential alignment between these funds. Mechanisms for integrating European Funds: Parliament calls for a fully integrated approach to related delivery instruments (community-led local development (CLLD), integrated territorial investments (ITIs), joint action plans (JAPs)), allowing local partnerships to choose different combinations of these instruments as appropriate, and for consideration to be given to the possibility of applying flexible arrangements for the purpose of concentrating resources, taking into account the specific needs of Member States and regions. Community-led local development (CLLD): Parliament supports the Commission’s proposals on CLLD as an important provision of the CPR and an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of local community actors working towards sustainable territorial objectives. However, it calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD. It also underlines the need to look at examples such as the integrated use of EARDF and EMFF funds through CLLD in the future programming period as a way of developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR. Joint action plans: similarly, Members support proposals by the CPR to introduce joint action plans to allow groups of projects to be funded by more than one operational programme, but they call for clarification on the scope and integration of joint action plans, and on whether they will be used to deliver entire, or only parts of, programmes. Integrated territorial investment (ITI): Parliament would welcome further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the instrument, if it fits local needs, to be used also in non-urban and peri-urban areas, with the use of all the funds covered by the CPR. It emphasises that the coherence of ITIs with regional sustainable development strategies has to be ensured in order to improve economic and social cohesion, not only among regions, but also among urban and non-urban areas within the regions. Financial instruments: Members welcome the Commission’s proposals for greater use of financial instruments and highlight the potential of these instruments, including micro-credits, to open up alternative sources of finance for a wide range of actors to complement traditional financing methods. Financial instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs. Integration of the funds covered by the CPR with other EU policies and instruments: Parliament welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + and the Connecting Europe Facility. Employment and social aspects: Members consider that the territorial approach should prove an effective mechanism for supporting SMEs in creating new sustainable jobs and developing vocational training programmes. Territorial cooperation and macroregional strategies could also be useful instruments for identifying and combating regional disparities, e.g. in access to education and employment, and for promoting convergence between European regions. Members stress the need to encourage voluntary mobility of workers and young graduates in the EU and to link educational services and facilities to local labour market needs. Lastly, Parliament believes it is of paramount importance to promote exchanges of best practice between Member States, and also considers it essential to coordinate the actions supported by the ESF at different policy levels, in order to allow an efficient territorial approach.
- 2013/01/14 Debate in Parliament
-
2012/12/12
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A7-0421/2012
summary
The Committee on Regional Development adopted the report by Derek VAUGHAN (S&D, UK) on optimising the role of territorial development in cohesion policy. It recalls that the territorial dimension is a cross-cutting aspect of cohesion policy and is now recognised by the Lisbon Treaty as a fundamental EU objective. Overarching concerns: strengthening the territorial objective: Members emphasise that, despite significant progress towards convergence in the EU, disparities (e.g. in terms of accessibility) still exist, and are continuing to widen, between EU regions. The budget for cohesion policy post-2013 must be at least maintained at its current level in order to ensure that support continues to reach areas in need of economic and social regeneration in all regions of the EU. The report welcomes the Commission’s proposals to focus on measurable results delivered by cohesion policy and highlights the need for a results-led system to include flexibility at national, regional and local level, so that results-led systems are region-specific. It endorses the Commission’s overarching proposals throughout the CPR, highlighting the fact, that rules, checks and eligibility must be made clear from the outset. Flexibility should extend to greater provision for projects to operate across different funds covered by the CPR. This increased flexibility would help to simplify project delivery and increase the complementary and cross-cutting aspects of European funding. Using other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020), possibly in alignment with cohesion policy funding, should also be considered when working towards Europe 2020 objectives. Members recognise a simplified multi-level governance system as integral to the decision-making process under cohesion policy, and call on the Commission to ensure that this is reflected in the development of clear and well-defined partnership contracts. This can only be achieved with the involvement of actors at local and regional level, so that all parties can contribute to the preparation and delivery of programmes. Greater integration of European funds for 2014-2020: on this issue, Members welcome the above-mentioned CPR proposals which encourage better coordination and integration of funding programmes, and stress that a stronger and more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with adequate capacity-building and the involvement of social and civil society partners at local and regional level, in both urban and rural settings, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe’s long-term social and economic challenges. Members also emphasise that, given the characteristics shared by the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020, LIFE+), the effectiveness of European funding could be enhanced by exploring the potential alignment between these funds. Mechanisms for integrating European Funds: Members welcome the proposals for a regulatory framework development through ‘community-led local development’, ‘joint action plans’ and ‘integrated territorial investment’, and highlight the need to keep the application of the proposed instrument as simple as possible, so as to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities and to keep in line with simplification objectives. They call for a fully integrated approach to related delivery instruments (community-led local development (CLLD), integrated territorial investments (ITIs), joint action plans (JAPs)), allowing local partnerships to choose different combinations of these instruments as appropriate, and for consideration to be given to the possibility of applying flexible arrangements for the purpose of concentrating resources, taking into account the specific needs of Member States and regions. Community-led local development (CLLD): Members support the Commission’s proposals on CLLD as an important provision of the CPR and an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of local community actors working towards sustainable territorial objectives. However, they call for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD. They also underline the need to look at examples such as the integrated use of EARDF and EMFF funds through CLLD in the future programming period as a way of developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR. Joint action plans: similarly, Members support proposals by the CPR to introduce joint action plans to allow groups of projects to be funded by more than one operational programme, but they call for clarification on the scope and integration of joint action plans, and on whether they will be used to deliver entire, or only parts of, programmes. Integrated territorial investment (ITI): the committee would welcome further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the instrument, if it fits local needs, to be used also in non-urban and peri-urban areas, with the use of all the funds covered by the CPR. It emphasises that the coherence of ITIs with regional sustainable development strategies has to be ensured in order to improve economic and social cohesion, not only among regions, but also among urban and non-urban areas within the regions. Financial instruments: Members welcome the Commission’s proposals for greater use of financial instruments and highlight the potential of these instruments, including micro-credits, to open up alternative sources of finance for a wide range of actors to complement traditional financing methods. Financial instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs. Integration of the funds covered by the CPR with other EU policies and instruments: the report welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + and the Connecting Europe Facility. Existing synergies between the funds covered by the CPR and Horizon 2020 mean that both sources of funding could potentially be used while working towards complementary thematic objectives. Employment and social aspects: Members consider that the territorial approach should prove an effective mechanism for supporting SMEs in creating new sustainable jobs and developing vocational training programmes. Territorial cooperation and macro-regional strategies could also be useful instruments for identifying and combating regional disparities, e.g. in access to education and employment, and for promoting convergence between European regions. Members stress the need to encourage voluntary mobility of workers and young graduates in the EU and to link educational services and facilities to local labour market needs. Lastly, they believe it is of paramount importance to promote exchanges of best practice between Member States, in the context of meaningful and effective long-term territorial development planning and by promoting decent and sustainable employment with a view to fighting poverty and unemployment.
-
A7-0421/2012
summary
-
2012/11/27
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2011/12/15
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0421/2012
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0002/2013
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 99 |
2011/2312(INI)
2012/05/03
EMPL
46 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that employment and social policies play an important role
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Underlines that indicators on the social and employment situation, such as the adjusted disposable income after social transfers, should complement the GDP criteria of eligibility for structural funds, including the ESF, as the current indicator does not always adequately reflect specific needs on a regional level, especially on NUTS 2 level;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that an integrated territorial approach for the ESF
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that an integrated territorial approach for the ESF and the other EU funds is vital for implementation of the subsidiarity principle through multilevel governance and underlines the importance of ensuring adequate capacity-building at local and regional level, particularly through training in procedures for the allocation of funds;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that an integrated territorial approach for the ESF is vital for implementation of the subsidiarity principle through multilevel governance and underlines the importance of ensuring adequate capacity at local
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Takes the view that it is extremely important for personnel, at all governance levels, planning and implementing actions contributing to political cohesion in the context of regional development to be adequately trained;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Underlines the importance of creating strong synergies between cohesion policy and other European policies, in order to safeguard its effectiveness in addressing current employment and social challenges;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines the importance, in shaping and implementing cohesion policy, of ensuring a fair balance between necessary checks on the use of funds and their effectiveness;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Points out that territorial cooperation and macro-regional strategies could be useful instruments for identifying and combating regional disparities, such as access to education and employment, and for promoting convergence between European regions;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities both between and within regions
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities both between and within regions; believes that programmes have to be tailored to regional and sub-regional needs and considers that
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that a territorial approach can be an effective mechanism for
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities both between and within regions; believes that programmes have to be tailored to regional and sub-regional needs and concentrate on a small number of priorities responding to the specific challenges they face and considers that the ESF has to continue supporting the development of local approaches in the field of employment and social inclusion;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities both between and within regions; believes that programmes have to be tailored to regional
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there are considerable employment and social disparities both between and within regions; believes that programmes have to be tailored to regional and sub-regional needs and considers that the ESF has to continue supporting the
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Believes that in order to give more tailor-made responses to regional and subregional needs and thus increase the effectiveness of EU funds, more flexibility is necessary when determining minimum shares for ESF allocations for the three categories of regions; believes that rigid minimum thresholds that do not reflect the specificities of the regions may lead to ineffective spending of resources which should be avoided;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Believes that, in order to adequately tackle social and economic disparities it is important that programming takes account of complementarities between "hard" (ERDF-type, e.g. infrastructure) and "soft" (mostly ESF-type e.g. training) type of measures; believes that appropriate measures for thematic concentration requirements should take account of such needs and allow for adequate complementary resources to be used especially in the fields of education and health infrastructure;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that a key priority is to provide all stakeholders with meaningful and integrated training and enhanced access to information on how to better utilise European resources for regional development;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to specify the procedures for the allocation of cohesion policy resources for combating youth unemployment and poverty;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Stresses that responding effectively to many problems in the area of social exclusion and poverty requires an adjusted and differentiated approach that has to take into account the specific needs of a given territory, such as metropolitan areas or rural areas;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Considers it essential for cohesion policy to cover the entire territory of the EU, and accordingly supports the Commission’s proposal to create an intermediate regions category;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that a territorial approach can be an effective mechanism for promoting development, employment, education and poverty reduction, which are core objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that poverty is concentrated mostly on microregional level, and considers that it should be tackled accordingly;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Believes that mobility of workers and young graduates could be a possible solution for regional and local labour market shortages and encourages Member States and regions to use it more effectively in order to encourage territorial development and cohesion;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4 c. Considers it essential to coordinate the actions supported by the ESF at different policy levels in order to enable an efficient territorial approach; in particular, considers it necessary to link the educational services and facilities at the local level to the labour market needs;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers it important that partnership contracts and operational programmes provide a comprehensive analysis of the disparities and development needs of territories and integrated strategies to address the specific
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers it important that partnership contracts and operational programmes provide a comprehensive analysis of the disparities and development needs of territories
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers it important that partnership contracts and operational programmes provide a comprehensive analysis of the disparities and development needs of territories and integrated strategies involving relevant funds (such as ERDF) to address the specific needs of those geographical areas most affected by unemployment and poverty or of target groups at highest risk of discrimination or social exclusion, with special regard to
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers it important that partnership contracts and operational programmes provide a comprehensive analysis of the disparities and development needs of territories and integrated strategies to address the specific needs of those geographical areas most affected by unemployment
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that it is of primary importance to promote the exchange of best practices between Member States within the context of meaningful and effective long-term territorial development planning, and by promoting decent and sustainable employment with a view to preventing and fighting poverty and unemployment;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Believes that operational programmes and projects must be designed and implemented at the appropriate level and attention must be paid to the role of cities, functional geographic territories, and areas facing specific geographical or demographic problems;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls that efforts must be made to ensure employment and integration into the labour market for those in the most disadvantageous circumstances;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Considers that institutional capacity at different levels of intervention is a significant element ensuring the success of applying the territorial approach;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that a territorial approach can be an effective mechanism for promoting development, employment, social inclusion, education and poverty reduction, which
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Member States to ensure an open dialogue with all the interested parties, particularly local authorities, social partners or non-governmental organisations active in the fight against poverty, for the preparation of partnership contracts and operational programmes; believes that, in order to efficiently use the territorial approach for actions funded from the ESF, it is essential to build mutual trust
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Member States to ensure an
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls the importance of facilitating the implementation of coordination platforms for innovative projects, having obtained excellent results in combating social and medical exclusion;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls on the Member States to improve the existing conditions for new entrepreneurs in order to better exploit their high potential for creating new sustainable jobs;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls on the European Commission to put forward a plan for facilitating the efficient use of the ESF by those countries that are facing greatest financial difficulties;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Supports the proposal of the creation of Intermediate regions which will help to ensure a proportionate and targeted response to the situation in regions where GNI is increasing and also regions where GNI is decreasing;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Calls on the Member States and the European Commission to develop proper recommendations for strengthening a policy approach based on results and documented evidence so as to increase the effective implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that a territorial approach can be an effective mechanism for promoting development, sustainable and decent employment, education and poverty reduction, which are core
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that combating poverty includes combating exclusion and that rural regions with low population density or with ageing populations must cope with a decline in medical demography, which could be offset by improved accessibility to broadband technologies and the promotion of telemedicine;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Considers that the territorial approach should be an effective mechanism for supporting SMEs to create new sustainable jobs and to initiate or develop programmes for vocational training;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that entrepreneurial activity aimed at growth and employment and the tapping of potential can work across administrative territorial boundaries;
source: PE-488.029
2012/09/26
REGI
53 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas it is vital for development decisions to be adopted as close as possible to the people affected by those decisions, and whereas local communities must also be involved in preparing and adopting such decisions,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the need to ensure a flexib
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises that
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Recognises that cohesion policy can make a valuable contribution to delivering
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Recognises that cohesion policy can make a valuable contribution to delivering EU2020 targets, especially in employment, education and poverty reduction; notes, however, that cohesion policy, as a permanent and legally binding objective of the EU, must not be used solely as a means of implementing EU2020;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Recognises the increased focus on cities and urban areas as a driver of economic growth; at the same time considers it necessary to foster partnerships and networks, thereby creating the specific conditions enabling rural settlements to participate in integrated activites of a given functional geographical entity;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Highlights the need to link territorial cooperation programmes more effectively with territorial strategies;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Highlights the importance of strengthening existing and promoting new urban-rural linkages;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9 b. Underlines the potential of European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) in strengthening territorial cooperation within the EU;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Expresses concern regarding the definition of cities and urban areas given the differing size, resources and social and economic aspects of cities in the EU and calls upon the Commission to adopt a shared definition of 'functional urban area';
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas, despite significant progress towards convergence in the European Union, the most recent cohesion reports highlight a trend towards widening territorial disparities between EU regions, for instance in terms of accessibility, especially in the case of structurally disadvantaged EU regions, but also at an intra-regional level and within EU territories, which could lead to spatial segregation and widen the differences in the levels of prosperity of the EU regions;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Expresses concern regarding the definition of cities and urban areas given the differing size, resources and social and economic aspects of cities in the EU; welcomes a definition decided at Member State or regional level
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Highlights that the territorial dimension of the cohesion policy has also the aim to support the development of the territories suffering from different handicaps such as cross-border, mountain, island and outermost regions, and that the prosperity in the Union as a whole will not be complete without a balanced development of all its territories;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Stresses that territorial cohesion also applies to cohesion within territories i.e. ensuring that the whole area makes an economic contribution and not just the large cities and emphasises that the potential of small and medium sized towns in rural areas to make a significant contribution to the region should not be overlooked;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10 b. Highlights that developing better integration between cities and surrounding rural areas requires a strong multi-level focus and collaboration between rural and urban stakeholders;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that territorial cohesion has a horizontal, multi-sectoral character and that Union policies must accordingly contribute to its achievement; reiterates that this concept is not limited to the effects of regional policy but also presupposes coordination with other Union policies that are targeted at sustainable development and offer tangible results at regional level, in order to develop and fully exploit the specific areas of regional potential and increase their impact on the ground, boosting regions’ competitiveness and attractiveness and achieving territorial cohesion;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Highlights that a stronger and more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with an efficient and strategic approach to implementing funds at the level closest to the citizen, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe's long-term social and economic challenges;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Stresses the need for clear and well defined Partnership Contracts, with the involvement of actors at local and regional level, so that all parties can contribute to the preparation and delivery of programmes;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Welcomes the proposals for a regulatory framework with a
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Stresses that, following the Commission's proposals,
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls for a fully integrated approach to related delivery instruments (CLLD, ITIs, JAPs), allowing local partnerships to choose, according to their individual needs, different combinations of these instruments as appropriate,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. recognises, in order to achieve this collaboration, the importance of the code of conduct for Member States consulting with regions and local authorities during the preparation stages of funding programmes;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18 a. highlights the need to keep the application of the proposed instrument as simple as possible to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities and to keep in line with simplification objectives;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Highlights the example of the sub- delegation to councils in the Netherlands, which includes parts of funding
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Highlights the example of the sub- delegation to councils in the Netherlands, which includes parts of funding programmes (e.g. ERDF) being delegated from the regional authority to large local authorities, with actions implemented at local level to address local needs; stresses that allocating management responsibility to local authorities gives greater potential to integrate the best combination of funds tailored to local needs; emphasises that, with the management structures already in place at local level, this approach could benefit the delivery of ITIs,
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Considers this instrument to be an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of local community actors working towards sustainable territorial objectives;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Considers this instrument to be an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of local community actors working towards territorial objectives; welcomes, in this respect, more capacity-building actions that will improve the participation of both the regional authorities and the local social partners;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21 a. recognises the past success of LEADER as an important tool for the delivery of rural development policy and believes that through CLLD this delivery mechanism can be instrumental in responding to local and regional challenges;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD through the preparation of delegated and implementing acts; supports the use of CLLD for urban development to enhance local initiatives through a bottom-up approach;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23 a. Stresses that the selection and approval of local development strategies proposed by newly established local action groups should be completed by 31 December 2016 at the latest;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 5 24. Underlines the need to look at examples such as the integrated use of EARDF, ESF and EFF funds through community-led local development in the future programming period as a way of developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights the fact that the budget for cohesion policy post-2013 must be at least maintained at its current level in order to ensure that support continues to reach areas in need of economic and social regeneration, including the transition regions;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 5 24. Underlines the need to look at examples such as the integrated use of EARDF and EFF funds through community-led local development in the future programming period as a way of developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Stresses the importance of ensuring that these instruments are developed alongside the CLLD in order to ensure that the CLLD grows into more than merely a strategic tool
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Considers that the joint action plans, which are instruments for promoting closer integration of various funds aimed at achieving a common objective, should be an operational document drawn up by local authorities for the purpose of, among other things, better addressing a range of problems requiring intervention in different areas.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 b (new) 28b. Recognises that joint action plans can be a very effective form of providing technical assistance as well as a means of achieving the balanced integration of young people into the labour market;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 c (new) 28c. Points out that in order to minimise the risk of excessively long decision- making processes and complicated administrative procedures, the system for implementing the joint action plans could envisage the establishment, at the first stage, of an institution responsible for managing the programme at regional level with the task of assessing the joint action plans. At the second stage the individual projects could be submitted to the various entities responsible solely for the contracting of funds, as a continuation of a previously approved joint action plan (the entity would only submit, for example, the budget for a given project, together with an indication of the results to be achieved as a result of the intervention). The institution confirming a joint action plan would be responsible for monitoring and assessing the whole plan, including synergy effects and added value. The individual contracting institutions would, on the other hand, be responsible for the implementation of the budget and the impact of the individual tasks;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Calls on the Commission to define at EU level clear criteria for the selection of functional urban areas, in which integrated actions for sustainable urban development would be carried out. On the basis of these criteria and taking into account national and regional strategies, Member States would choose the functional urban areas to be included in a Partnership Contract. This would be a list of functional urban areas meeting the criteria and having the potential to carry out Integrated Territorial Investments. However, it would be up to the Member States/Managing Authorities to decide which functional urban areas could ultimately implement ITI, depending on whether a given functional urban area is fulfilling obligations in connection with the implementation of ITI;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the instrument, if it fits local needs, to be used in non-urban, and in particular periurban areas;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the instrument, if it fits local needs, to be used in non-urban areas, in order to improve economic and social cohesion, not only among regions, but also among urban and non-urban areas within the regions;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30 a. Highlights that the coherence of the ITIs with regional sustainable development strategies at regional level has to be ensured;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the Commission's proposals to place a results-led approach at the heart of the CPR, with the focus on measurable
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Highlights the example of a proposed model for ITIs from Greater Manchester, which integrates funding from as many relevant sources as possible to achieve better value from investment; highlights the fact that the development of this model is ongoing and could potentially be used to support a strategy bringing many economic and social benefits to the city region; emphasises that the proposed ITI would integrate ERDF priorities with ESF measures and that, given the increased focus of ERDF on SMEs and innovation, there is potential for the ITI to
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Highlights the potential of financial instruments, including micro-credits, to open up alternative sources of finance for a wide range of actors to complement traditional financing methods;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 a (new) 34 a. stresses that in the future funding framework Financial Instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 b (new) 34 b. Integration of CSF funds with other EU policies and instruments . welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between CSF funds and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + or the Connecting Europe Facility; . recognises that, while funding programmes such as H2020 are primarily focused on excellence, Structural Funds have previously been successful in a 'capacity building' role by providing funding to develop businesses or organisations that have then gone on to become partners in FP7 or Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) projects; . stresses that the existing synergies between CSF funds and Horizon 2020 mean that both funds could potentially be used while working towards complementary thematic objectives;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Emphasises that the objective of territorial cohesion remains indissociable from the challenges of economic and social cohesion and strengthens the European added value of cohesion policy;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Highlights the need for the focus on a results-led system to include flexibility at member state and regional level, taking into account simplification, programming priorities and partnership, so that results- led systems are regional-specific in order to achieve the best possible efficiency;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Endorses the Commission's overarching proposals throughout the CPR to reduce administrative burden; highlights the fact, therefore, that rules, checks and eligibility must be made clear from the outset and not to be additionally complicated at national level, and that successful simplification of administrative procedures can be achieved through an integrated approach to the delivery of funds; Insists on measures for further strengthening of the administrative capacity at regional and local level to be taken, especially with regard to the application of the new requirements and procedures for the next programming period;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Is of the opinion that ‘concentration, cooperation and connection’ are the key coordinates of territorial cohesion with a view to more balanced territorial development in the EU;
source: PE-494.845
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| other/0/dg/title |
Old
Regional PolicyNew
Regional and Urban Policy |
| procedure/subject/1 |
Old
4.70.02 Cohesion, Cohesion FundNew
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund |
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|