2013/2095(INI) | [ParlTrack]

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 ~~as soon as possible~~by the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible after the closure of the negotiations on the sectoral dossiers so that the budget for cCohesion pPolicy is set and programmes can start on time;

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 ~~a flexible approach should be taken to this~~this approach leaves sufficient flexibility in order to address local and regional needs;

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 ~~will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding~~might endanger the goals of cohesion policy by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria;

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 ~~political pressures and~~ changes of government that could impede the preparations for the next programming period; highlights the fact that, in cases like these, the advantages of having systems in place that ensure that all administrative work continues regardless of changes in governments are vital to the continued preparations;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced political pressures ~~and~~, changes of government or austerity measures induced by the fiscal compact that could impede the preparations for the next programming period; highlights the fact that, in cases like these, the advantages of having systems in place that ensure that all administrative work continues regardless of changes in governments are vital to the continued preparations;

Amendment 29 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

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~~, including a~~; welcomes that certain Member States decided to make changes towards multi- funded programmes or a reduction in the number of OPs at regional level;

Amendment 32 #

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; h~~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;

Amendment 33 #

Lambert van NISTELROOIJ

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 one way of ensuring that the approach to PAs functions in Member States with devolved administrations is to include separate chapters in the PAs drawn up by the regional administrations; stresses that this approach ensures that administrations with devolved powers for European Funding Programmes are more directly involved in the development of PAs and have the option of developing their own programming ideas and delivery mechanisms;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recognises, however, that this could have an ~~adverse~~ impact on the preparedness of the Member States as a whole ~~if one or more of the regional administrations were slow in preparing their chapters for the PAs~~;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are pot~~Highlights that Member States with a high number of OPs at regional level could be slower in their preparations due to potential added bureaucracy; in this instance, stronger control is required by the centiral~~ly slower~~ government during their preparations~~; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy and requires stronger control by the central government~~ for the PAs in that Member State; reiterates that the responsibility for the content and administration of OPs should lie with the regional level administration, in line with settlements in that Member State;

Amendment 38 #

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 and requires stronger control by the central government~~;

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 ~~and~~, requires stronger control by the central government and is more demanding as regards coordination of respective authorities on the national, regional and local level;

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 ~~developing transport links~~improving accessibility throughout the EU over recent years; states that investments in the environment, energy, waste and water sector that have also been considerable need further fine- tuning in order to achieve the objectives of protecting and preserving the environment;

Amendment 40 #

Marie-Thérèse SANCHEZ-SCHMID

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 adds to the bureaucracy and might requires stronger control by the central government;

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

26. Highlights the fact that a federal Member State 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;deleted

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, and 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 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Recognises however that a reduction inof OPs at regional level would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay at the outset due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing the OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; ~~recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;~~

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; ~~recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;~~

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 that support continues to reach areas that are in need of economic ~~and soci~~, social and environmental regeneration;

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 ~~and~~, regional organisations and social and economic partners need to be enhanced;

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

Amendment 55 #

Dimitar STOYANOV

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~~investment in order to open up alternative sources of funding to complement traditional financing methods; highlights, therefore, the importance of using financial instruments, such as loans and guarantees, to encourage cooperation between ~~enterprise~~SMEs, public sector organisations ~~and~~, educational institutions and all other interested parties;

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, ~~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; highlights, therefore, the importance of setting out clear rules for using financial instruments, such as loans and guarantees, to encourage cooperation between enterprises, public sector organisations and educational institutions; believes that the European Commission, the EIB and the EIF should further inform public authorities and managing authorities on the rules and benefits of the use the ESI Funds for financial engineering instruments as soon as possible to reduce delays in conception and negotiation;

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 ~~and guarantees,~~, guarantees and equity investments, as complements to grants in order to encourage cooperation between enterprises, public sector organisations and educational institutions;

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 important; insists, further, on the quality of programmes and the objectivity of spending;

Amendment 59 #

Hans-Peter MARTIN

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 ~~and soci~~, social and environmental priorities to ensure increased effectiveness of funds are cited as being vitally important by many Member States;

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 ~~and that evidence shows~~; is aware that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs due to its much longer existence and due to the fact that ITIs are a new instrument that will need some time to be properly put into practice; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;

Amendment 63 #

Jan OLBRYCHT

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 ~~evidence~~an analysis of Member States’ current plans shows that CLLD ~~is being~~will be 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 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Is ~~encourag~~disappointed by the fact that only 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 evidence shows that CLLD is being more widely implemented in the EAFRD than in the ERDF than ITIs; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;

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 rural development; calls on the Member States and regions to make use of the opportunities offered by CLLD;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Recognises J~~oint Action Plan~~APs as a positive step towards results-based management, in line with one of the overarching aims of cohesion policy post 2013;

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 #

Dimitar STOYANOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Points out that ~~a simplified~~many Member States identified a simplified, electronic application process for beneficiaries was ~~identified by many Member States as an important aspect of~~an essential requirement, and that it is an important precondition of effective 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~~of general interest proceed according to schedule, by significantly reducing the administrative burden on applicants;

Amendment 7 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

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~~edness of~~ations for future funding programmes;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Emphasises that the decision-making process and the formulation of PAs ~~should~~has to involve collaboration at national, regional and local level in the planning, development and implementation of EU cohesion policy funding programmes, as recognised by the simplified multi-level governance system proposed in the regulations;

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 ~~and soci~~, social and environmental viewpoints is important;

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 ‘'bottom-up’' and ‘'top- down’' approaches to ensure that national strategies addressing the social ~~and economic~~, economic and environmental situation were included alongside extensive involvement at regional and local level; welcomes this effective way of guaranteeing that strategic requirements are met while at the same time engaging relevant stakeholders as far as possible in preparations;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Highlights th~~e fact that this Member State combined th~~at these ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top- down’ approaches to ensure that national strategies addressing the social and economic situation were included alongside extensive involvement at regional and local level; welcomes this effective way of guaranteeing that strategic requirements are met while at the same time engaging relevant stakeholders as far as possible in preparations;

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 ~~experienc~~suffering severe delays ~~be provided with additional support by the Commission~~should rigorously follow the recommendations issued by the Commission in the form of the individual Position Papers in autumn 2012 and also their subsequent dialogue with the Commission; highlights that the Commission should increase its support to ensure that theirse Member States' PAs and OPs are agreed as soon as possible; notes therefore that reviewing Member States' progress during the preparation stages would help reduce delays; notes also that during the implementation phase the Commission could seek to develop more measures to assist struggling Member States;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. HStresses that in the current times of crisis, cohesion policy funding in a number of Member States represents the main, if not only, source of investment; in this regard, highlights the importance of ensuring that Member States and regions are in a position to begin implementing the new round of cohesion policy funding as soon as possible at the start of 2014;

source: PE-521.786

2013/10/25 BUDG 9 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Takes note of~~Welcomes the political agreement reached on 27 June 2013 on the MFF for 2014-2020; stresses that with a view to swift and effective launch of the new Cohesion Policy period, it is vital that the negotiations on the legislative package, the partnership agreements and the operational programmes be concluded at the earliest opportunity; emphasises that any delay will result, in budgetary terms, in a concentration of payment requests at the end of the period;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the backlog of outstanding commitments (‘'RAL’') amounted to two-thirds of Cohesion Policy funding by the end of the MFF for 2007- 20131 ; stresses the need to find a reliable means of reducing the risk of implementation of EU programmes being blocked owing to lack of payment; draws attention t~~o the impact the N+3 rule~~hat the N+3 rule, whilst being essential to secure the implementation of projects supported by Cohesion Policy, will have an impact on accumulation of the RAL in coming years, ~~not least as a result of the~~in particular in case of delay in the launch of the new programmes; __________________ 1 If amending budget No 2/2013 is approved for an overall value of EUR 11.2 billion, it is estimated that the RAL could reach EUR 224 million in total by the end of 2013, while in its initial estimates the Commission suggested that the RAL would be EUR 180 billion at the end of 2013.

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, ~~both~~ in the preparation of the programmes and agreements ~~and in their implementation~~, in their implementation and evaluation; underlines the importance of an adequate information flow and technical support for these authorities, in order to facilitate and optimise their contribution in all stages of this process;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reaffirms emphatically its opposition to macroeconomic conditionality and to the performance reserve, both of which could seriously penalise local and regional authorities and discourage innovation;deleted

Amendment 5 #

Nils TORVALDS, Hannu TAKKULA, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN

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 #

Nils TORVALDS, Hannu TAKKULA, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN

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 #