BETA


2015/2279(INI) Cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI IOTOVA Iliana (icon: S&D S&D) BOGOVIČ Franc (icon: PPE PPE), PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr (icon: ECR ECR), JAKOVČIĆ Ivan (icon: ALDE ALDE), VANA Monika (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ADINOLFI Isabella (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion AGRI DANTIN Michel (icon: PPE PPE) Ivan JAKOVČIĆ (icon: ALDE ALDE), Momchil NEKOV (icon: S&D S&D), James NICHOLSON (icon: ECR ECR), Laurenţiu REBEGA (icon: ENF ENF), Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2016/09/23
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2016/05/10
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2016/05/10
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 553 votes to 63, with 49 abstentions, a resolution on cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU.

Members recalled that mountainous regions in the EU are rarely in the focus of Cohesion Policy. Yet, these regions represent a significant amount of EU territory (around 30 %), and the entirety of the EU depends on their ecosystem services. These regions are structurally disadvantaged, owing to their extreme conditions and remoteness, to the extent that many mountainous regions face depopulation and ageing populations.

Parliament made a number of recommendations as to how the mountains of the EU can contribute to its targets, such as Europe 2020.

Coordinated approach and general considerations : given that there is no explicit definition of mountainous regions in EU regional policy, Parliament called on the Commission to start the process of creating a working definition for functional mountainous regions in the context of Cohesion Policy, complementing the definition of mountainous areas as used in the context of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, with the aim of improving coordination of the policies and measures concerned.

This definition must be wide and inclusive, taking into account different factors such as altitude, accessibility and slope. It should cover volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions, as well as areas that, while not mountainous, are largely integrated with mountain areas. Members welcomed the current initiatives for the Carpathian Mountains in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the progress made on the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alps.

Parliament considered that EU policies should have a specific approach to mountainous regions , as they have clear structural disadvantages.

The Commission is invited to:

present a communication containing an ‘ agenda for EU mountainous regions’ and establish a specific, in ‑ depth programme to protect those European glaciers which are predicted to disappear by 2050; present a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities; encourage the use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to reach concrete results; regularly assess the condition of mountainous regions in the EU, and analyse data, such as the results of the implementation of Cohesion Policy operational programmes and indicators, in order to focus EU funding and policy implementation in a correct way; propose a European Year of Islands and Mountains.

The managing authorities are called upon to consider increasing allocations of ESI Funds at national level to support undeveloped mountainous areas, using a multi-sectoral policy approach, where possible.

Parliament also called for synergies to be increased by means of the coordination of EU policies, strategies and programmes that have an indirect effect upon mountainous regions, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Natura 2000, the EU Broadband Strategy, the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the EU Environment Action Programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, European Territorial Cooperation, ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), as well as macro-regional strategy initiatives.

The European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) instrument offers an excellent opportunity to share best practices and knowledge among mountainous regions, which in many cases are located on national borders. Members called for a specific mountain dimension in the future ETC.

Jobs and economic growth in mountainous regions : in this regard, Parliament highlighted the need to:

pay specific attention to the development of SMEs in mountainous regions, particularly areas affected by natural and climate-aggravated disasters, urges the Member States accordingly to give priority to investment in infrastructure and services in mountain areas; improve the marketing of agricultural products and including them within the general tourism products of a given geographical area; moreover, as mountain areas have strong potential for producing high-quality food products and to start the debate about introducing special labelling for mountain food products at EU level; emphasise, within the strategy, the economic dimension of forestry taking into account the economic and social role of forestry in mountain areas; put in place additional incentives to preserve small processing enterprises and small and medium-sized mountain farms in mountainous areas; use the ESI Funds for economic sectors that do not pollute and are future-oriented , such as sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainable forestry, high-speed internet development, crafts, and renewable energy.

Sustainable growth, environment, accessibility : the resolution lays down the points that should be included in the agenda and the sector-specific policy. Members made the following recommendations:

increase the qualifications of the workforce and creating new jobs in the green economy should be part of the investment priorities of the ESI Funds; attract young people into the agricultural sector by encouraging young entrepreneurs to branch out in areas relating to cultural heritage; the CAP should aim to compensate the natural and economic disadvantages that farmers face but should also give them the means to capitalise on their assets; ensure sustainable milk production in mountain areas; present specific recommendations for overcoming the shortage of skilled labour in the tourism industry , specifically addressing the challenges of unattractive jobs and insufficient remuneration; ensure the development and improvement of healthcare facilities and services in mountainous regions, inter alia through cross-border cooperation initiatives, including the development of cross-border healthcare establishments, where needed; encourage tailor ‑ made solutions adapted to local and regional needs to access public services ; support innovative solutions, including IT-based ones, for access to basic quality education , as well as formal and informal education and lifelong learning opportunities, in remote mountainous areas; more effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee as a good opportunity to stop the outflow of young people from mountainous regions; focus on policies that encourage and facilitate the use of renewables in mountainous regions and place climate change at the heart of a future 'Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions'. create incentives for more active development of public-private partnerships in mountainous regions, in transport, communication and energy infrastructure , as the lack of economies of scale makes the provision of these services commercially unattractive.

Lastly, Parliament considered that the Internet, and more specifically, next-generation access technologies play a crucial part in overcoming the challenges faced by mountainous regions. It considered therefore that specific support from ESI Funds is needed for the promotion of employment, social inclusion and empowerment in the emerging digital economy .

Documents
2016/05/10
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2016/05/09
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2016/04/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Iliana IOTOVA (S&D, BG) on cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU.

Mountainous regions in the EU are rarely in the focus of Cohesion Policy. Yet, mountainous regions represent a significant amount of EU territory (around 30 %), and the entirety of the EU depends on their ecosystem services.

This report focuses on how the mountains of the EU can contribute to its targets, such as Europe 2020. It contains the following recommendations:

Coordinated approach and general considerations : the report called on the Commission to start the process of creating a working definition for functional mountainous regions in the context of Cohesion Policy, complementing the definition of mountainous areas as used in the context of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, with the aim of improving coordination of the policies and measures concerned.

This definition must be wide and inclusive, taking into account different factors such as altitude, accessibility and slope. It should cover volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions, as well as areas that, while not mountainous, are largely integrated with mountain areas. Members welcomed the current initiatives for the Carpathian Mountains in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the progress made on the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alps.

The Commission is also invited to:

present a communication containing an ‘ agenda for EU mountainous regions’ and subsequent to this, present a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities; encourage the use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to reach concrete results;

Members also called for synergies to be increased by means of the coordination of EU policies, strategies and programmes that have an indirect effect upon mountainous regions, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Natura 2000, the EU Broadband Strategy, the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the EU Environment Action Programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, European Territorial Cooperation, ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), as well as macro-regional strategy initiatives.

The European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) instrument offers an excellent opportunity to share best practices and knowledge among mountainous regions, which in many cases are located on national borders. Members called for a specific mountain dimension in the future ETC.

Jobs and economic growth in mountainous regions : in this regard, the report highlighted the need to:

pay specific attention to the development of SMEs in mountainous regions, particularly areas affected by natural and climate-aggravated disasters, urges the Member States accordingly to give priority to investment in infrastructure and services in mountain areas; improve the marketing of agricultural products and including them within the general tourism products of a given geographical area; moreover, as mountain areas have strong potential for producing high-quality food products and to start the debate about introducing special labelling for mountain food products at EU level; emphasise, within the strategy, the economic dimension of forestry taking into account the economic and social role of forestry in mountain areas; put in place additional incentives to preserve small processing enterprises and small and medium-sized mountain farms in mountainous areas; use the ESI Funds for economic sectors that do not pollute and are future-oriented , such as sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainable forestry, high-speed internet development, crafts, and renewable energy.

Sustainable growth, environment, accessibility : the report lays down the points that should be included in the agenda and the sector-specific policy:

increase the qualifications of the workforce and creating new jobs in the green economy should be part of the investment priorities of the ESI Funds; attract young people into the agricultural sector by encouraging young entrepreneurs to branch out in areas relating to cultural heritage; the CAP should aim to compensate the natural and economic disadvantages that farmers face but should also give them the means to capitalise on their assets; ensure sustainable milk production in mountain areas; ensure the development and improvement of healthcare facilities and services in mountainous regions; support innovative solutions, including IT-based ones, for access to basic quality education, as well as formal and informal education and lifelong learning opportunities, in remote mountainous areas; more effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee as a good opportunity to stop the outflow of young people from mountainous regions; focus on policies that encourage and facilitate the use of renewables in mountainous regions and place climate change at the heart of a future 'Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions'.

Lastly, Members considered that the Internet, and more specifically, next-generation access technologies play a crucial part in overcoming the challenges faced by mountainous regions. They considered therefore that specific support from ESI Funds is needed for the promotion of employment, social inclusion and empowerment in the emerging digital economy .

Documents
2016/03/17
   EP - Vote in committee
2016/02/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/01/28
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2015/12/14
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2015/10/29
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2015/10/28
   EP - DANTIN Michel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2015/07/14
   EP - IOTOVA Iliana (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0074/2016 - Iliana Iotova - § 16/1 #

2016/05/10 Outcome: +: 624, -: 54, 0: 7
DE IT ES PL RO FR GB BE PT CZ HU EL SE NL FI DK BG SK HR LT IE LV SI AT LU EE CY MT ??
Total
91
69
48
45
31
70
54
21
20
21
18
20
19
24
13
12
12
12
11
10
10
8
8
15
5
5
5
5
1
icon: PPE PPE
200

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
173
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Bulgaria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
64

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2
2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
48

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

1

France NI

3

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
38

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

2

Romania ENF

1

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

A8-0074/2016 - Iliana Iotova - § 16/2 #

2016/05/10 Outcome: +: 518, -: 156, 0: 9
IT DE ES RO PT CZ HU FR BG FI IE SE HR BE EL PL LT NL SI SK CY MT LV DK LU EE AT ?? GB
Total
69
90
48
31
20
21
19
69
12
13
10
19
11
21
20
45
10
24
8
12
5
5
8
12
5
5
15
1
53
icon: PPE PPE
199

Lithuania PPE

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
174

Bulgaria S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Romania ALDE

3

Bulgaria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
48

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Poland EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
36

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands ENF

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

For (1)

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: ECR ECR
64

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2
2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A8-0074/2016 - Iliana Iotova - Résolution #

2016/05/10 Outcome: +: 553, -: 63, 0: 49
DE IT ES RO GB PL FR BE PT CZ HU AT BG SK NL IE HR LT FI EL SE LV DK SI LU EE CY MT ??
Total
91
69
47
31
51
44
68
20
20
19
17
13
11
12
23
10
10
10
13
20
19
8
12
7
5
5
4
3
1
icon: PPE PPE
195

Lithuania PPE

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
170

Bulgaria S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1
3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
42

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
47

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: ECR ECR
62

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Slovakia ECR

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

3
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

1

France NI

3
icon: ENF ENF
35

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Poland ENF

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
AmendmentsDossier
305 2015/2279(INI)
2016/01/19 AGRI 143 amendments...
source: 575.229
2016/01/28 REGI 162 amendments...
source: 575.218

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

events/3/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2016-05-09-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament
committees/0/shadows/3
name
OMARJEE Younous
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE572.940
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-572940_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE575.218
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-575218_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE573.109&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-573109_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2016-04-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0074_EN.html title: A8-0074/2016
summary
events/2
date
2016-04-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0074_EN.html title: A8-0074/2016
summary
events/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160509&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5
date
2016-05-10T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0213_EN.html title: T8-0213/2016
summary
events/5
date
2016-05-10T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0213_EN.html title: T8-0213/2016
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: IOTOVA Iliana date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-07-14T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: IOTOVA Iliana group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
rapporteur
name: DANTIN Michel date: 2015-10-28T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2015-10-28T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DANTIN Michel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/3/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0074&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0074_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0213
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0213_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2015-10-29T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2015-10-28T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: DANTIN Michel body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: BOGOVIČ Franc group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: JAKOVČIĆ Ivan group: GUE/NGL name: OMARJEE Younous group: Verts/ALE name: VANA Monika group: EFD name: ADINOLFI Isabella responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
  • date: 2016-03-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2015-10-28T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: DANTIN Michel body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: BOGOVIČ Franc group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: JAKOVČIĆ Ivan group: GUE/NGL name: OMARJEE Younous group: Verts/ALE name: VANA Monika group: EFD name: ADINOLFI Isabella responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
  • date: 2016-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0074&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0074/2016 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2016-05-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160509&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-05-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0213 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0213/2016 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: CREȚU Corina
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-07-14T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: IOTOVA Iliana group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AGRI
date
2015-10-28T00:00:00
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
rapporteur
group: EPP name: DANTIN Michel
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2015-10-28T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DANTIN Michel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2015-07-14T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
docs
  • date: 2015-12-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE572.940 title: PE572.940 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2016-01-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE575.218 title: PE575.218 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2016-02-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE573.109&secondRef=02 title: PE573.109 committee: AGRI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2016-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=26980&j=0&l=en title: SP(2016)486 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2015-10-29T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-03-17T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-04-04T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0074&language=EN title: A8-0074/2016 summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Iliana IOTOVA (S&D, BG) on cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU. Mountainous regions in the EU are rarely in the focus of Cohesion Policy. Yet, mountainous regions represent a significant amount of EU territory (around 30 %), and the entirety of the EU depends on their ecosystem services. This report focuses on how the mountains of the EU can contribute to its targets, such as Europe 2020. It contains the following recommendations: Coordinated approach and general considerations : the report called on the Commission to start the process of creating a working definition for functional mountainous regions in the context of Cohesion Policy, complementing the definition of mountainous areas as used in the context of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, with the aim of improving coordination of the policies and measures concerned. This definition must be wide and inclusive, taking into account different factors such as altitude, accessibility and slope. It should cover volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions, as well as areas that, while not mountainous, are largely integrated with mountain areas. Members welcomed the current initiatives for the Carpathian Mountains in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the progress made on the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alps. The Commission is also invited to: present a communication containing an ‘ agenda for EU mountainous regions’ and subsequent to this, present a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities; encourage the use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to reach concrete results; Members also called for synergies to be increased by means of the coordination of EU policies, strategies and programmes that have an indirect effect upon mountainous regions, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Natura 2000, the EU Broadband Strategy, the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the EU Environment Action Programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, European Territorial Cooperation, ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), as well as macro-regional strategy initiatives. The European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) instrument offers an excellent opportunity to share best practices and knowledge among mountainous regions, which in many cases are located on national borders. Members called for a specific mountain dimension in the future ETC. Jobs and economic growth in mountainous regions : in this regard, the report highlighted the need to: pay specific attention to the development of SMEs in mountainous regions, particularly areas affected by natural and climate-aggravated disasters, urges the Member States accordingly to give priority to investment in infrastructure and services in mountain areas; improve the marketing of agricultural products and including them within the general tourism products of a given geographical area; moreover, as mountain areas have strong potential for producing high-quality food products and to start the debate about introducing special labelling for mountain food products at EU level; emphasise, within the strategy, the economic dimension of forestry taking into account the economic and social role of forestry in mountain areas; put in place additional incentives to preserve small processing enterprises and small and medium-sized mountain farms in mountainous areas; use the ESI Funds for economic sectors that do not pollute and are future-oriented , such as sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainable forestry, high-speed internet development, crafts, and renewable energy. Sustainable growth, environment, accessibility : the report lays down the points that should be included in the agenda and the sector-specific policy: increase the qualifications of the workforce and creating new jobs in the green economy should be part of the investment priorities of the ESI Funds; attract young people into the agricultural sector by encouraging young entrepreneurs to branch out in areas relating to cultural heritage; the CAP should aim to compensate the natural and economic disadvantages that farmers face but should also give them the means to capitalise on their assets; ensure sustainable milk production in mountain areas; ensure the development and improvement of healthcare facilities and services in mountainous regions; support innovative solutions, including IT-based ones, for access to basic quality education, as well as formal and informal education and lifelong learning opportunities, in remote mountainous areas; more effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee as a good opportunity to stop the outflow of young people from mountainous regions; focus on policies that encourage and facilitate the use of renewables in mountainous regions and place climate change at the heart of a future 'Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions'. Lastly, Members considered that the Internet, and more specifically, next-generation access technologies play a crucial part in overcoming the challenges faced by mountainous regions. They considered therefore that specific support from ESI Funds is needed for the promotion of employment, social inclusion and empowerment in the emerging digital economy .
  • date: 2016-05-09T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160509&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-05-10T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=26980&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2016-05-10T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0213 title: T8-0213/2016 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 553 votes to 63, with 49 abstentions, a resolution on cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU. Members recalled that mountainous regions in the EU are rarely in the focus of Cohesion Policy. Yet, these regions represent a significant amount of EU territory (around 30 %), and the entirety of the EU depends on their ecosystem services. These regions are structurally disadvantaged, owing to their extreme conditions and remoteness, to the extent that many mountainous regions face depopulation and ageing populations. Parliament made a number of recommendations as to how the mountains of the EU can contribute to its targets, such as Europe 2020. Coordinated approach and general considerations : given that there is no explicit definition of mountainous regions in EU regional policy, Parliament called on the Commission to start the process of creating a working definition for functional mountainous regions in the context of Cohesion Policy, complementing the definition of mountainous areas as used in the context of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, with the aim of improving coordination of the policies and measures concerned. This definition must be wide and inclusive, taking into account different factors such as altitude, accessibility and slope. It should cover volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions, as well as areas that, while not mountainous, are largely integrated with mountain areas. Members welcomed the current initiatives for the Carpathian Mountains in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the progress made on the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alps. Parliament considered that EU policies should have a specific approach to mountainous regions , as they have clear structural disadvantages. The Commission is invited to: present a communication containing an ‘ agenda for EU mountainous regions’ and establish a specific, in ‑ depth programme to protect those European glaciers which are predicted to disappear by 2050; present a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities; encourage the use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to reach concrete results; regularly assess the condition of mountainous regions in the EU, and analyse data, such as the results of the implementation of Cohesion Policy operational programmes and indicators, in order to focus EU funding and policy implementation in a correct way; propose a European Year of Islands and Mountains. The managing authorities are called upon to consider increasing allocations of ESI Funds at national level to support undeveloped mountainous areas, using a multi-sectoral policy approach, where possible. Parliament also called for synergies to be increased by means of the coordination of EU policies, strategies and programmes that have an indirect effect upon mountainous regions, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Natura 2000, the EU Broadband Strategy, the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the EU Environment Action Programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, European Territorial Cooperation, ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), as well as macro-regional strategy initiatives. The European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) instrument offers an excellent opportunity to share best practices and knowledge among mountainous regions, which in many cases are located on national borders. Members called for a specific mountain dimension in the future ETC. Jobs and economic growth in mountainous regions : in this regard, Parliament highlighted the need to: pay specific attention to the development of SMEs in mountainous regions, particularly areas affected by natural and climate-aggravated disasters, urges the Member States accordingly to give priority to investment in infrastructure and services in mountain areas; improve the marketing of agricultural products and including them within the general tourism products of a given geographical area; moreover, as mountain areas have strong potential for producing high-quality food products and to start the debate about introducing special labelling for mountain food products at EU level; emphasise, within the strategy, the economic dimension of forestry taking into account the economic and social role of forestry in mountain areas; put in place additional incentives to preserve small processing enterprises and small and medium-sized mountain farms in mountainous areas; use the ESI Funds for economic sectors that do not pollute and are future-oriented , such as sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainable forestry, high-speed internet development, crafts, and renewable energy. Sustainable growth, environment, accessibility : the resolution lays down the points that should be included in the agenda and the sector-specific policy. Members made the following recommendations: increase the qualifications of the workforce and creating new jobs in the green economy should be part of the investment priorities of the ESI Funds; attract young people into the agricultural sector by encouraging young entrepreneurs to branch out in areas relating to cultural heritage; the CAP should aim to compensate the natural and economic disadvantages that farmers face but should also give them the means to capitalise on their assets; ensure sustainable milk production in mountain areas; present specific recommendations for overcoming the shortage of skilled labour in the tourism industry , specifically addressing the challenges of unattractive jobs and insufficient remuneration; ensure the development and improvement of healthcare facilities and services in mountainous regions, inter alia through cross-border cooperation initiatives, including the development of cross-border healthcare establishments, where needed; encourage tailor ‑ made solutions adapted to local and regional needs to access public services ; support innovative solutions, including IT-based ones, for access to basic quality education , as well as formal and informal education and lifelong learning opportunities, in remote mountainous areas; more effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee as a good opportunity to stop the outflow of young people from mountainous regions; focus on policies that encourage and facilitate the use of renewables in mountainous regions and place climate change at the heart of a future 'Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions'. create incentives for more active development of public-private partnerships in mountainous regions, in transport, communication and energy infrastructure , as the lack of economies of scale makes the provision of these services commercially unattractive. Lastly, Parliament considered that the Internet, and more specifically, next-generation access technologies play a crucial part in overcoming the challenges faced by mountainous regions. It considered therefore that specific support from ESI Funds is needed for the promotion of employment, social inclusion and empowerment in the emerging digital economy .
  • date: 2016-05-10T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: CREȚU Corina
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
REGI/8/04826
New
  • REGI/8/04826
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.10.01.06 Less-favoured agricultural areas
  • 4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
New
3.10.01.06
Less-favoured agricultural areas
4.70.02
Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160509&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0213 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0213/2016
activities/4/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/3/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/2/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Iliana IOTOVA (S&D, BG) on cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU.

    Mountainous regions in the EU are rarely in the focus of Cohesion Policy. Yet, mountainous regions represent a significant amount of EU territory (around 30 %), and the entirety of the EU depends on their ecosystem services.

    This report focuses on how the mountains of the EU can contribute to its targets, such as Europe 2020. It contains the following recommendations:

    Coordinated approach and general considerations: the report called on the Commission to start the process of creating a working definition for functional mountainous regions in the context of Cohesion Policy, complementing the definition of mountainous areas as used in the context of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, with the aim of improving coordination of the policies and measures concerned.

    This definition must be wide and inclusive, taking into account different factors such as altitude, accessibility and slope. It should cover volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions, as well as areas that, while not mountainous, are largely integrated with mountain areas. Members welcomed the current initiatives for the Carpathian Mountains in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the progress made on the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alps.

    The Commission is also invited to:

    • present a communication containing an ‘agenda for EU mountainous regions’ and subsequent to this, present a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities;
    • encourage the use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to reach concrete results;

    Members also called for synergies to be increased by means of the coordination of EU policies, strategies and programmes that have an indirect effect upon mountainous regions, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Natura 2000, the EU Broadband Strategy, the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the EU Environment Action Programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, European Territorial Cooperation, ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), as well as macro-regional strategy initiatives.

    The European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) instrument offers an excellent opportunity to share best practices and knowledge among mountainous regions, which in many cases are located on national borders. Members called for a specific mountain dimension in the future ETC.

    Jobs and economic growth in mountainous regions: in this regard, the report highlighted the need to:

    • pay specific attention to the development of SMEs in mountainous regions, particularly areas affected by natural and climate-aggravated disasters, urges the Member States accordingly to give priority to investment in infrastructure and services in mountain areas;
    • improve the marketing of agricultural products and including them within the general tourism products of a given geographical area; moreover, as mountain areas have strong potential for producing high-quality food products and to start the debate about introducing special labelling for mountain food products at EU level;
    • emphasise, within the strategy, the economic dimension of forestry taking into account the economic and social role of forestry in mountain areas;
    • put in place additional incentives to preserve small processing enterprises and small and medium-sized mountain farms in mountainous areas;
    • use the ESI Funds for economic sectors that do not pollute and are future-oriented, such as sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainable forestry, high-speed internet development, crafts, and renewable energy.

    Sustainable growth, environment, accessibility: the report lays down the points that should be included in the agenda and the sector-specific policy:

    • increase the qualifications of the workforce and creating new jobs in the green economy should be part of the investment priorities of the ESI Funds;
    • attract young people into the agricultural sector by encouraging young entrepreneurs to branch out in areas relating to cultural heritage;
    • the CAP should aim to compensate the natural and economic disadvantages that farmers face but should also give them the means to capitalise on their assets;
    • ensure sustainable milk production in mountain areas;
    • ensure the development and improvement of healthcare facilities and services in mountainous regions;
    • support innovative solutions, including IT-based ones, for access to basic quality education, as well as formal and informal education and lifelong learning opportunities, in remote mountainous areas;
    • more effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee as a good opportunity to stop the outflow of young people from mountainous regions;
    • focus on policies that encourage and facilitate the use of renewables in mountainous regions and place climate change at the heart of a future 'Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions'.

    Lastly, Members considered that the Internet, and more specifically, next-generation access technologies play a crucial part in overcoming the challenges faced by mountainous regions. They considered therefore that specific support from ESI Funds is needed for the promotion of employment, social inclusion and empowerment in the emerging digital economy.

activities/2/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0074&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0074/2016
activities/3/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/4
date
2016-05-10T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/2
date
2016-04-04T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
activities/3/date
Old
2016-05-26T00:00:00
New
2016-05-09T00:00:00
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/1
date
2016-03-17T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
activities/1/date
Old
2016-04-27T00:00:00
New
2016-05-26T00:00:00
activities/1/date
Old
2016-04-11T00:00:00
New
2016-04-27T00:00:00
procedure/title
Old
Cohesion Policy in mountainous regions of the EU
New
Cohesion policy in mountainous regions of the EU
procedure/subject/1
Old
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund
New
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4f1ad9fcb819f207b3000048
New
53b2db6eb819f205b0000089
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/2/name
Old
NICOLAI Norica
New
JAKOVČIĆ Ivan
committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4f1ad9fcb819f207b3000048
New
53b2db6eb819f205b0000089
committees/1/shadows/2/name
Old
NICOLAI Norica
New
JAKOVČIĆ Ivan
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/4
group
Verts/ALE
name
VANA Monika
committees/1/shadows/4
group
Verts/ALE
name
VANA Monika
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
OMARJEE Younous
committees/1/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
OMARJEE Younous
activities
  • date: 2015-10-29T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2015-10-28T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: DANTIN Michel body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: BOGOVIČ Franc group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: NICOLAI Norica group: EFD name: ADINOLFI Isabella responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
  • date: 2016-04-11T00:00:00 body: EP type: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2015-10-28T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: DANTIN Michel
  • body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: BOGOVIČ Franc group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: NICOLAI Norica group: EFD name: ADINOLFI Isabella responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: S&D name: IOTOVA Iliana
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: CREȚU Corina
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
REGI/8/04826
reference
2015/2279(INI)
title
Cohesion Policy in mountainous regions of the EU
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Awaiting committee decision
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject