Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | REGI | VAUGHAN Derek ( S&D) | VAN NISTELROOIJ Lambert ( PPE), DELLI Karima ( Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | DAERDEN Frédéric ( S&D) | Richard ASHWORTH ( ECR), Helga TRÜPEL ( Verts/ALE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on EU Member States preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy Programming period.
Parliament emphasised the need to ensure an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy Programming period .
It underlined the satisfactory outcome achieved by the adoption of the multiannual financial framework ( MFF ) for 2014-2020 and the legal framework for cohesion policy with a view to ensuring the swift and effective launch of the new cohesion policy.
In the current economic, financial and social crisis, cohesion policy funding in a number of Member States represents a key source of public investment . This is why the Member States and the regions must tackle, as soon as possible, the implementation of the new round of cohesion policy funding at the start of 2014.
The resolution also pointed out that the backlog of outstanding commitments (or RAL, from the French ‘reste à liquider’) amounted to two-thirds of cohesion policy funding by the end of the MFF for 2007-2013; it stressed the need to find a reliable means of reducing the risk of the implementation of EU programmes being blocked owing to a lack of payments.
Progress in Member States : the Parliament highlighted that Member States are at very different stages in their preparations. Some Member States are dealing with a significant reduction in their budgets for the next programming period while in others there is ongoing debate on the distribution of budgets within the Member States. Parliament recognised that both of these issues could cause a delay in preparations.
According to Members, the Commission should increase its support to ensure that these Member States’ partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs) are agreed as soon as possible. Therefore, reviewing Member States’ progress during the preparation stages would help reduce delays. Furthermore, during the implementation phase, the Commission could come to the rescue of those Member States that are lagging behind .
The resolution stressed that active and well informed national and regional administrations that engage with the Commission could have a positive impact on advancing preparations. Parliament strongly recommends, therefore, that the Commission and the national and regional authorities have a steady flow of information , such as details of upcoming implementing acts.
Common Provisions Regulation : Parliament welcomed the improvements made to the regulation that will introduce a stronger and more integrated approach to cohesion policy funding through the Common Strategic Framework. It called on the Member States to introduce even more measures simplifying the bureaucracy and administration of the programmes.
Members underlined the importance of the Smart Specialisation Strategy , considering that the next programming period will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria. Furthermore, cohesion policy should not serve as a guarantee for other EU policies aimed at macroeconomic reforms in the Membe r States .
Effectiveness of funds : Parliament welcomed the fact many Member States mentioned their focus on a results-led approach . It considered that national operational programmes should take into account development objectives at local and regional level and pointed out that generating synergies between the various sources of available EU funding and the budgets of the Member States and of regional and local authorities should be encouraged.
On the basis of successful experiences from the 2007-2013 round, Parliament welcomed the fact that Member States are seeking to enhance the leveraging of private sector funding in order to open up alternative sources of funding to complement traditional financing methods. It stressed the importance of setting out clear rules for using innovative financial instruments, such as loans, guarantees and equity investments, as complements to grants in order to encourage cooperation between enterprises, public sector organisations and educational institutions.
Synergies with other policies and instruments : Members were encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) , an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of community actors.
Simplification : Parliament welcomed the positive steps taken towards simplification and greater transparency in the management of European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds; it noted, however, that in reality simplification could be difficult to achieve due to the differences that remain between the funds introduced by the fund-specific regulations.
Members called on Member States and regional and local authorities to exchange best practice geared to simplifying procedures, and, while acknowledging that stringent rules on controls and auditing are necessary, to ensure that they are proportionate so as not to add an unnecessary burden.
Partnership : Parliament e mphasised that the decision-making process and the formulation of PAs must involve collaboration at national, regional and local level in the planning, development and implementation of EU cohesion policy funding programmes. Underlining that the principle of multi-level governance is essential to effective management of the cohesion policy Members stressed the need to involve regional and local authorities and stakeholders fully in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the programmes.
In this context, they welcomed the increased involvement of all the relevant stakeholders , local and regional representatives, NGOs, economic and social partners, private businesses and universities.
The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Derek VAUGHAN (S&D, UK) on EU Member States preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy Programming period.
The report stressed the necessity of ensuring an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy Programming period . Members welcomed the adoption of both the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 and the legal framework for cohesion policy
Progress in Member States : the report highlighted that Member States are at very different stages in their preparations.
According to Members, the Commission should increase its support to ensure that these Member States’ partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs) are agreed as soon as possible. Therefore, reviewing Member States’ progress during the preparation stages would help reduce delays. Furthermore, during the implementation phase the Commission could come to the rescue of those Member States that are lagging behind .
The report stressed that active and well informed national and regional administrations that engage with the Commission could have a positive impact on advancing preparations. It strongly recommends, therefore, that the Commission and the national and regional authorities have a steady flow of information , such as details of upcoming implementing acts.
Common Provisions Regulation : the report welcomed the improvements made to the regulation that will introduce a stronger and more integrated approach to cohesion policy funding through the Common Strategic Framework. It called on the Member States to introduce even more measures simplifying the bureaucracy and administration of the programmes .
Members underlined the importance of the Smart Specialisation Strategy , considering that the next programming period will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria.
Effectiveness of funds : Members welcomed the fact many Member States mentioned their focus on a results-led approach . They considered that national operational programmes should take into account development objectives at local and regional level and pointed out that generating synergies between the various sources of available EU funding and the budgets of the Member States and of regional and local authorities should be encouraged.
On the basis of successful experiences from the 2007-2013 round, the Committee welcomed the fact that Member States are seeking to enhance the leveraging of private sector funding in order to open up alternative sources of funding to complement traditional financing methods.
Synergies with other policies and instruments : Members were encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) , an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of community actors.
Simplification : Members called on Member States and regional and local authorities to exchange best practice geared to simplifying procedures , and, while acknowledging that stringent rules on controls and auditing are necessary, to ensure that they are proportionate so as not to add an unnecessary burden.
Partnership agreements (PAs) : the report underlined the Commission’s call for Member States and regions to strive to ensure that the PAs and OPs prepared are of the highest possible quality. According to the Members, this would help to generate quality project proposals, targeted at specific objectives, ensuring that EU funding has the greatest possible impact.
Underlining that the principle of multi-level governance is essential to effective management of the cohesion policy, Members stressed the need to involve regional and local authorities and stakeholders fully in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the programmes.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)320
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0015/2014
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0007/2014
- Committee opinion: PE519.799
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE521.786
- Committee draft report: PE519.777
- Committee draft report: PE519.777
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE521.786
- Committee opinion: PE519.799
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)320
Amendments | Dossier |
93 |
2013/2095(INI)
2013/10/22
REGI
84 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas Cohesion Policy contributes to achieve the EU 2020 targets for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, in order for this to happen, a conclusion of the negotiations on the CPR must be reached as soon as possible in full respect of the ordinary legislative procedure;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Regrets that the adoption by the Council and the Parliament of regulations of the future cohesion policy, as well as the agreement on the MFF, has not taken place earlier; is of the opinion that the late adoption impedes anticipation and preparation by Member States and regional authorities for partnership agreements and operational programs; believes that interinstitutional procedures do not always meet the needs for a transparent debate;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the need for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adopted
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes also that in addition to an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy programming period, ensuring the quality of PAs and OPs must be of paramount importance to make sure that funds are used to their full potential in the long term;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be free of provisions sanctioning regions if there is an excessive deficit;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the improvements made to the regulation that will introduce a stronger and more integrated approach to cohesion policy funding through the Common Strategic Framework; recognises that this it is vital to ensuring that projects have a greater impact and produce tangible results; calls on the Member States to introduce even more measures simplifying the bureaucracy and administration of the programmes that would lead to smother implementation and drawing of the funds;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the proposals to introduce simplification measures throughout the CPR with a to reducing administrative burdens; considers that making the process simpler for applicants, beneficiaries and managing authorities will bring added value to EU funding;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points to the strengthening of the partnership involvement and the European Code of Conduct on Partnership which acknowledges the pivotal role of local and regional actors as well as civil society organisations for successful implementation on the ground;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Recognises that cohesion policy can make a vital contribution to delivering Europe 2020 targets and therefore highlights the importance of aligning cohesion policy with Europe 2020 goals through thematic concentration on a limited number of objectives; stresses that
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Welcomes that a minimum share for the ESF is set out thus taking account of the extended portfolio and importance of this fund, in particular in times of crisis;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas cohesion policy, which constitutes the main policy for the development of the EU, contributes to overcoming the economic crisis for most of the Member States; whereas for this reason the benefits of cohesion policy should not be endangered by a mechanism such as the macroeconomic conditionality;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Underlines the importance of the Smart Specialisation Strategy as a way of complementing the goals of the Europe 2020 growth strategy by focusing on identifying and maximising areas of competitive strength, sharing best practice and integrating research, innovation and education through EU-wide partnerships; underlines that the smart specialisation is not the only way of conducting economic policy;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Highlights the fact that, while sufficient conditionality measures already exist in cohesion policy, the next programming period
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Highlights the fact that, while conditionality measures already exist in cohesion policy, the next programming period will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria; is of the opinion that the Cohesion Policy is a policy in support of cohesion between regions that should not serve as a guarantee of other EU policies aimed at macroeconomic reforms of the EU states;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that advanced preparations are dependent on the relevant authorities and organisations having sufficient capacity to invest time and money in preparations and to release sufficient number of personnel at an early stage;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises that advanced preparations are dependent on the relevant authorities and organisations having sufficient capacity to invest time, personnel and money in preparations at an early stage;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recognises that these advanced preparations meant that in some cases the ex-ante evaluation and strategic environment impact assessments (SEIA) were performed in a timely manner, allowing the drafts to be amended in September and October 2013, based on the outcomes of these evaluations;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced political pressures
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Acknowledges that the current economic situation in some of the Member States means that more importance needs to be given to Cohesion Policy as a key investment tool and that the remaining difficulties may in fact require a shift in priorities in order to exit the crisis and relaunch their economies;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 1 Ensuring an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy Programming period
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Welcomes the Commission's ambition to play a stronger role in the preparation and implementation of the policy; demands in particular that the requirements for the involvement of local and regional actors as well as civil society organisations are met to increase ownership of the policy and reach Union targets;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Points out that some Member States are planning to change the content of their OPs
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recognises the potential difficulties with the preparation of PAs in Member States with regional governments, due to individual regional concerns; highlights the fact that the amount of control afforded to regional administrations varies greatly according to the organisational set-up in the different Member States, with some regions being extremely active and having almost complete control of most aspects of cohesion policy funding and representation in the PAs; highlights in this respect the code of conduct in which the partnership principle is safeguarded for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Highlights that it is necessary for the regional dimension to be fully considered; stresses the important role regions play when choosing areas of competitive strength;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Highlights the fact that
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Recognises, however, that this could have an
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Points out that
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potentially slower in their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Recognises that cohesion policy funding has successfully invested billions of euros in creating new jobs, supporting innovative businesses and
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potentially slower in their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level reflecting the regional development needs, which might add
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Calls on those Member States which have made their regions responsible for the management of EU funding to ensure that new staff in charge of that task have the requisite skills, and that the allocation of the funding is not politicised in any way;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Highlights the fact that a federal Member State or a Member State with elected regional governments could benefit from a more succinct, flexible and joined-up approach to OPs; stresses, with this in mind, that having a single OP, where previously there were individual OPs for each province/federation, brings many benefits by enabling priorities to be aligned more easily with national objectives;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Highlights the fact that a federal Member State could benefit from a more succinct
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Recognises however that a reduction
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Recognises that a reduction in OPs would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Recognises that a reduction in OPs would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States or in Member States with elected regional governments might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Notes that the Commission has received considerable interest in multi- fund programmes, with many Member States planning to have at least one or more multi-fund programmes; highlights that the risks associated with the multi- fund approach in the past included increased administrative burden and delay, which comes from having a number of different Commission Directorates General involved with different approaches in each DG; notes also that the impact of any problems or delays could be multiplied two or three fold with multi-fund programmes;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Recognises that different institutional settings in the Member States are acknowledged in the CPR and provisions are foreseen to accommodate specific cases; underlines that regional and local levels are best placed to identify development needs and to implement programmes in proximity to the citizens, organisations, enterprises and authorities concerned;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights, however, the fact that disparities still exist, and are in some cases widening, between EU regions, and that continued investment of EU funding at regional level is vitally important to ensure
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Calls on the Commission to make the preparedness of Member States´ Partnership Agreements public by means of e.g. a summary per Member State so that the other Member States and authorities may learn from good practices and approaches;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Highlights the fact that for many Member States, transferring methods and mechanisms from the 2007-2013 programming period to the post 2013 period will be a major issue; stresses that ensuring that ongoing projects continue to be effective while new projects are being developed is also a challenge; highlights the fact that bureaucratic alterations such the annual closure and the creation of the accrediting body constitute a challenge for the timely start of the new programming period;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Considers that the examples provided by Member States clearly show that coordination between different measures, OPs and funds need to be improved and that the involvement of local authorities
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Recognises that common problems identified in the previous programming period included having priorities that were too broadly defined; calls, therefore, for a more strategic and streamlined approach to priorities in the future, with fewer priorities targeted at specific objectives; is of the opinion that certain flexibility of priorities is essential in order to reflect individual needs of the Member States, their regions and local authorities;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Recognises that common problems identified in the previous programming period included having priorities that were too broadly defined; calls, therefore, for a more strategic
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Welcomes the fact that, on the basis of successful experiences from the previous
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Welcomes the fact that, on the basis of successful experiences from the previous round of funding,
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Welcomes the fact that, on the basis of successful experiences from the previous round of funding, many Member States are seeking to enhance the leveraging of private sector funding in order to open up alternative sources of funding to complement traditional financing methods; stresses that at a time of heavy fiscal constraint and reduced lending capacity on the part of the private sector, the increased use of financial instruments can foster public-private partnerships, achieve a multiplier effect with the EU budget, open up alternative sources of finance and guarantee an important financing stream for strategic regional investments; highlights, therefore, the importance of using innovative financial instruments, such as loans
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Underlines that it is clear from the experiences of previous funding programmes that ensuring a positive, long- term impact for the funds is vitally
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Highlights the fact that the focus on a results-led approach was mentioned by many Member States as a target for preparing the next round of funding; welcomes the examples given by some Member States of ways of taking a more efficient approach to defining expected results in advance in order to allow funding to be directed towards proposals to achieve these objectives; recommends that the other Member States follow such examples in future funding rounds;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Highlights, however, the fact that disparities still exist, and are in some cases widening, between EU regions, and that continued investment of EU funding at local and regional level is vitally important to ensure that support continues to reach areas that are in need of economic and social regeneration;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Stresses that coordination across policy areas and recognising national and regional economic
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Stresses that coordination across policy areas and recognising national and regional economic and social priorities to ensure increased effectiveness of funds are cited as being vitally important by many Member States; takes the view that specific development objectives at subsidiary levels should match national operational programmes;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans; understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans; understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Is
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) and Joint Action Plans (JAPs); understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that evidence shows that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Considers CLLD to be an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of community actors, based on the past success of the LEADER programme in
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Recognises J
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 a (new) 41a. Welcomes the emphasis on simplification in the CPR; notes, however that in reality simplification could be difficult to achieve due to the differences that remain between the funds introduced by the fund specific regulations; notes specifically in terms of administration and management, where procedures are not fully standardised and there remains a big difference between funds;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Points out that
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Highlights the importance of the Cohesion Policy for all the European Union's regions as an instrument for reducing the disparities that still exist in terms of the development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, and the fact that particular attention is to be paid, in accordance with the Treaty, to rural areas, areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross- border and mountain regions, along with the outermost regions of the European Union;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Points out that a simplified application process for beneficiaries was identified by many Member States as an important aspect of preparations for the next programming period; welcomes this as a way of ensuring that the preparation and implementation of projects run smoothly, with reduced bureaucracy for applicants; recognises the importance of best practice geared to simplifying procedures by removing levels of bureaucracy and transferring decisions to regional authority level;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Points out that a simplified application process for beneficiaries was identified by many Member States as an important aspect of preparations for the next programming period; welcomes this as a way of ensuring that the preparation and implementation of projects run smoothly, with reduced bureaucracy for applicants; calls on the Member States to identify and simplify also measures on the level of controls and auditing;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Recognises that e-cohesion can be vital to reducing bottlenecks and ensuring simplification, and welcomes the reference by some Member States to its use; believes that this could also make a significant contribution to the prepar
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 44 44. Emphasises that the decision-making process and the formulation of PAs
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45. Welcomes the increased involvement of all the relevant stakeholders, local and regional representatives, NGOs, economic and social partners, private businesses and universities, as illustrated by the examples provided by Member States; believes that development in cooperation with other organisations and stakeholders representing different economic
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45. Welcomes the increased involvement of all the relevant stakeholders, local and regional representatives, NGOs, economic and social partners, private businesses and universities, as illustrated by the examples provided by some Member States; believes that development in cooperation with other organisations and stakeholders representing different economic and social viewpoints is important; calls on the Member States to implement the partnership principle;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Highlights the fact that this Member State combined the
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Highlights th
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Urges a quick agreement to be reached on the legal framework for cohesion policy alongside the conclusion of the CPR negotiations and the MFF;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 a (new) 48a. Regrets that the European Parliament is not better informed by the European Commission and the Council of the progress in the preparation of Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes, in particular when the interinstitutional negotiations have not yet been concluded;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Highlights the fact that cohesion policy has to tackle the growing youth unemployment in the European Union;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 49. Recognises the importance of multi- level governance and partnership involvement in the preparation stages and points out that some of the most advanced preparations have been based on vital dialogue with stakeholders at regional and local level;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 a (new) 49a. Highlights the Commission's call for Member States and regions to strive to ensure that PAs and OPs prepared are of the highest possible quality; notes that this will help lead to generating good quality project proposals targeted towards specific objectives to ensure that EU funding has the greatest possible impact;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 a (new) 49a. Emphasizes the need to invest in capacity-building of the administration and stakeholder and use technical assistance to this end;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 50. Realises that an active and well informed regional administration that engages with the Commission can have a positive impact on advancing preparations; recommends that the Commission inform the regional authorities on cooperation and documentation arrangements;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Recommends that Member States that are
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
source: PE-521.786
2013/10/25
BUDG
9 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that the backlog of outstanding commitments (
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes the principle of multi-level governance to be essential to effective management of the new Cohesion Policy; stresses in this respect that the local and regional authorities should be fully involved, within their own spheres of competence,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Notes the agreement reached between Council and Parliament on the performance reserve, in the negotiations on the Common Provisions Regulation; recognises the improvements that were brought about in the performance reserve, ensuring stable and predictable rules for the authorities and beneficiaries; underscores that the performance reserve should not affect the initial pre-financing levels;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Understands the social and economic difficulties that some Member States are experiencing, but reaffirms its strong support and the need for macroeconomic conditionality;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underscores its position on the importance of a compulsory review and revision of the next MFF by the end of 2016, in order to allow the next Commission and Parliament to reassess the EU's political priorities, to adapt it, if necessary, to new challenges and to take full account of the latest macroeconomic projections;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the positive steps taken towards simplification and greater transparency in the management of EU funds; underlines that simple procedures lead to reduction of shortcomings and therefore better use of European funds; stresses the need to adopt a more ambitious approach at the level of the Commission and the Member States in order to simplify access to procedures for obtaining funding, public procurement rules and monitoring arrangements, and to ensure that clear and accessible information is available on beneficiaries of EU funds and funding possibilities.
source: PE-522.813
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE519.777New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-519777_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE521.786New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-521786_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE519.799&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-519799_EN.html |
events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/2 |
|
events/2 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs/3/body |
EC
|
events/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0007&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2014-0007_EN.html |
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0015New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0015_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
REGI/7/12767New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
procedure/title |
Old
EU Member States' preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy programming periodNew
EU Member States' preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new cohesion policy programming period |
other/0/dg/title |
Old
Regional PolicyNew
Regional and Urban Policy |
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/0/mepref |
Old
545fca37d1d1c5177a000000New
4f1ada05b819f207b300004b |
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/mepref |
Old
545fca37d1d1c5177a000000New
4f1ada05b819f207b300004b |
committees/1/shadows/0/mepref |
Old
545fca37d1d1c5177a000000New
4f1ada05b819f207b300004b |
procedure/subject/0 |
Old
4.70.02 Cohesion, Cohesion FundNew
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|