BETA


2016/2303(INI) Future perspectives for technical assistance in cohesion policy

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI TOMAŠIĆ Ruža (icon: ECR ECR) SPYRAKI Maria (icon: PPE PPE), COZZOLINO Andrea (icon: S&D S&D), MIHAYLOVA Iskra (icon: ALDE ALDE), ROPĖ Bronis (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), D'AMATO Rosa (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion BUDG
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2017/09/26
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2017/05/18
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2017/05/18
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/05/18
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 580 votes to 45, with 3 abstentions, a resolution on future perspectives for Technical Assistance in Cohesion Policy.

Members recalled that technical assistance plays an important role in all phases of implementation of cohesion policy . However, local, regional and national authorities often lack the necessary capacity to efficiently and effectively implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds).

Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission : Parliament welcomed the Commission’s activities funded by technical assistance, in particular its work on: (i) the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument, (ii) the Competency Framework, (iii) the Self-Assessment Tool, (iv) the Integrity Pacts, (v) the Guide for practitioners on how to avoid the 25 most common errors on public procurement and the Study on stocktaking administrative capacity on public procurement in all Member States.

Technical assistance instruments should have a greater role in the post-2020 cohesion policy and urged the Commission to raise awareness at local and regional level regarding their use.

Parliament recommended:

the scope of the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument to be extended to all partners to ensure the broad exchange of experience , to contribute to capacity building, and to facilitate capitalising on good practices. They stressed the need to continue and improve the work of the Task Force for Better Implementation in order to support Member States experiencing difficulties in implementing cohesion policy; ensure consistency with the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) while stressing that any possible prolongation of the programme should not detract from cohesion policy thematic objectives and that resources should not be taken away from ESI Funds technical assistance; develop a broader technical assistance strategy to ensure more effective coordination covering all DGs that deal with the ESI so as to streamline the support provided and maximise synergies and complementarities; better streamline the technical assistance in order to cover areas where managing authorities and beneficiaries encounter most challenges; analyse how JASPERS activity for the period 2007-2013 providing independent quality review (IQR) has improved project quality and cut the time taken for approval of major projects by the Commission; prepare measures and resources to set up technical assistance for the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies , having taken into account the varied experiences and rates of success of implementing such strategies, as well as the fact that the strategies' participants include non-Member States and countries with limited funds.

Noting that since technical assistance was first used in the area of cohesion policy, no global analysis has been done to establish its actual contribution, Members called on the Commission to invest in improving the reporting and evaluation system by developing more appropriate indicators ready for use in the next programming period.

The resolution stressed the importance of implementing specific technical assistance measures to promote re-industrialisation in depressed areas so as to attract investments in high-tech and innovative sectors with a low environmental impact.

Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States : Parliament emphasised that technical assistance is different from other actions financed by the ESI Funds and that it is hard to measure its results. There is a need for a strategic and transparent approach, coordinated at the various levels of governance, as well as for flexibility to meet needs identified by managing authorities in the Member States.

Members were concerned that:

in certain Member States technical assistance does not sufficiently and effectively reach the local and regional authorities, which usually have the lowest administrative capacity. Sound and transparent communication channels need to be established between the different levels of governance in order to successfully implement the ESI Funds and to achieve cohesion policy goals, while restoring trust in the effective functioning of the EU and its policies; in the implementation of integrated actions for sustainable urban development , although tasks are delegated to urban authorities which act as intermediate bodies, they often do not receive the necessary technical assistance for building up their capacity; many Member States are not applying the European code of conduct on partnership which defines the need to help the relevant partners strengthen their institutional capacity in regard to programme preparation and implementation.

Parliament highlighted that increased communication on and the visibility of the results and successes achieved with the support of ESI Funds can contribute to regaining citizens' trust in the EU. It called for the creation of a separate budget for communication within the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member State.

In order to reduce excessive procedural complications, Member States called for technical assistance to be increasingly focused on the beneficiary/project level regardless of whether it relates to the public, private or civil society sector. This would ensure the supply of innovative and well-designed projects fitting in with already existing strategies and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.

Technical assistance must be seen as a simple, flexible instrument that can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances.

Members called for:

better reporting by Member States in the post-2020 period of the types of actions financed by technical assistance, as well as the results achieved; increased use of technical assistance in European Territorial Cooperation and related programmes and in the field of cross-border relations; the Commission to implement an ex-post evaluation of both centrally managed technical assistance and technical assistance under shared management.

Documents
2017/05/18
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2017/05/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the initiative report by Ruža TOMAŠIĆ (ECR, HR) on future perspectives for Technical Assistance in Cohesion Policy.

Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (Article 58 of the Common Provisions Regulation - CPR)

Members welcomed the Commission’s activities funded by technical assistance, in particular its work on the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument, the Competency Framework and Self-Assessment Tool, the Integrity Pacts, the Guide for practitioners on how to avoid the 25 most common errors on public procurement and the Study on stocktaking administrative capacity on public procurement in all Member States.

They stressed that technical assistance instruments should have a greater role in the post-2020 cohesion policy and urged the Commission to raise awareness at local and regional level regarding their use.

Members recommended that the scope of the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument be extended to all partners to ensure the broad exchange of experience , to contribute to capacity building, and to facilitate capitalising on good practices.

They stressed the need to continue and improve the work of the Task Force for Better Implementation in order to support Member States experiencing difficulties in implementing cohesion policy.

Members pointed out that the extension of the Structural Reforms Support Programme (SRSP) should not detract from cohesion policy thematic objectives and that resources should not be taken away from ESI Funds technical assistance.

They suggested the development of a broader technical assistance strategy to ensure more effective coordination covering all DGs that deal with the ESI as well as the activities of the Structural Reform Support Service related to cohesion policy so as to streamline the support provided, avoid duplication and maximise synergies and complementarities. They also stressed the need for complementarity with technical assistance measures carried out downstream at national and regional level .

Members stressed the need to analyse how Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) activity for the period 2007-2013 has improved project quality and cut the time taken for Commission approval of major projects.

They noted that since technical assistance was first used in the area of cohesion policy no global analysis has been done to establish its actual contribution. This has its contribution to administrative capacity-building and institutional strengthening hard to assess and thus to ensure the effective management of ESI Funds.

Members called on the Commission to:

invest in improving the reporting and evaluation system by developing more appropriate indicators ready for use in the next programming period; prepare measures and resources to set up technical assistance for the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies , having taken into account the varied experiences and rates of success of implementing such strategies, as well as the fact that the strategies' participants include non-Member States and countries with limited funds and insufficient human resources.

Lastly, Members stressed the importance of implementing specific technical assistance measures to promote re-industrialisation in depressed areas so as to attract investments in high-tech and innovative sectors with a low environmental impact

Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States (Article 59 of the CPR): Members emphasised that technical assistance is different from other actions financed by the ESI Funds and that it is hard to measure its results. There is a need for a strategic and transparent approach, coordinated at the various levels of governance, as well as for flexibility to meet needs identified by managing authorities in the Member States.

Members were concerned that:

in certain Member States technical assistance does not sufficiently and effectively reach the local and regional authorities, which usually have the lowest administrative capacity. Sound and transparent communication channels need to be established between the different levels of governance in order to successfully implement the ESI Funds and to achieve cohesion policy goals, while restoring trust in the effective functioning of the EU and its policies; in the implementation of integrated actions for sustainable urban development, although tasks are delegated to urban authorities which act as intermediate bodies, they often do not receive the necessary technical assistance for building up their capacity; many Member States are not applying the European code of conduct on partnership which defines the need to help the relevant partners strengthen their institutional capacity in regard to programme preparation and implementation.

Members highlighted that increased communication on and the visibility of the results and successes achieved with the support of ESI Funds can contribute to regaining citizens' trust in the EU. They called for the creation of a separate budget for communication within the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member State.

Members stressed that, to reduce excessive procedural complications , technical assistance should be increasingly focused on the beneficiary/project level regardless of whether it relates to the public, private or civil society sector. This would ensure the supply of innovative and well-designed projects fitting in with already existing strategies and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Technical assistance must be seen as a simple, flexible instrument that can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances.

They called for:

better reporting by Member States in the post-2020 period of the types of actions financed by technical assistance, as well as the results achieved; increased use of technical assistance in European Territorial Cooperation and related programmes as those areas have their own specificities and require support in all phases of implementation, so as to enhance that cooperation and increase the stability of the programmes concerned; the Commission to implement an ex-post evaluation of both centrally managed technical assistance and technical assistance under shared management .

Documents
2017/04/25
   EP - Vote in committee
2017/03/24
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/01/17
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/11/24
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2016/09/08
   EP - TOMAŠIĆ Ruža (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Votes

A8-0180/2017 - Ruža Tomašić - Vote unique #

2017/05/18 Outcome: +: 580, -: 45, 0: 3
DE IT ES PL FR RO GB PT NL CZ BG BE HU SE EL FI AT DK SK LT IE HR SI LV EE LU CY MT
Total
82
64
45
46
59
25
45
20
23
18
15
17
16
18
20
13
17
11
11
9
9
8
8
7
6
5
5
5
icon: PPE PPE
182

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
169

Netherlands S&D

3

Belgium S&D

2
3

Lithuania S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Romania ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
59

Italy ECR

1

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
2

Denmark ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
29

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
12

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

France NI

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Austria ENF

3
AmendmentsDossier
93 2016/2303(INI)
2017/03/24 REGI 93 amendments...
source: 602.727

History

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

committees/0/shadows/3
name
JUARISTI ABAUNZ Josu
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=PE597.486
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-597486_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.727
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-602727_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
2017-05-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0180_EN.html title: A8-0180/2017
summary
events/2
date
2017-05-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0180_EN.html title: A8-0180/2017
summary
events/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170518&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5
date
2017-05-18T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0223_EN.html title: T8-0223/2017
summary
events/5
date
2017-05-18T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0223_EN.html title: T8-0223/2017
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
docs/2/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0180&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0180_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0223
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0223_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža date: 2016-09-08T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2016-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2016-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2016-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
activities
  • date: 2016-11-24T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: SPYRAKI Maria group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: MIHAYLOVA Iskra group: GUE/NGL name: JUARISTI ABAUNZ Josu group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2016-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
  • date: 2017-04-25T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: SPYRAKI Maria group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: MIHAYLOVA Iskra group: GUE/NGL name: JUARISTI ABAUNZ Josu group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2016-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
  • date: 2017-05-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0180&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0180/2017 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in Parliament docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0223 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0223/2017
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2016-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2016-09-08T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
docs
  • date: 2017-01-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE597.486 title: PE597.486 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2017-03-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.727 title: PE602.727 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2017-09-26T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=29547&j=0&l=en title: SP(2017)511 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2016-11-24T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-04-25T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-04T00:00:00 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=A8-2017-0180&language=EN title: A8-0180/2017 summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the initiative report by Ruža TOMAŠIĆ (ECR, HR) on future perspectives for Technical Assistance in Cohesion Policy. Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (Article 58 of the Common Provisions Regulation - CPR) Members welcomed the Commission’s activities funded by technical assistance, in particular its work on the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument, the Competency Framework and Self-Assessment Tool, the Integrity Pacts, the Guide for practitioners on how to avoid the 25 most common errors on public procurement and the Study on stocktaking administrative capacity on public procurement in all Member States. They stressed that technical assistance instruments should have a greater role in the post-2020 cohesion policy and urged the Commission to raise awareness at local and regional level regarding their use. Members recommended that the scope of the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument be extended to all partners to ensure the broad exchange of experience , to contribute to capacity building, and to facilitate capitalising on good practices. They stressed the need to continue and improve the work of the Task Force for Better Implementation in order to support Member States experiencing difficulties in implementing cohesion policy. Members pointed out that the extension of the Structural Reforms Support Programme (SRSP) should not detract from cohesion policy thematic objectives and that resources should not be taken away from ESI Funds technical assistance. They suggested the development of a broader technical assistance strategy to ensure more effective coordination covering all DGs that deal with the ESI as well as the activities of the Structural Reform Support Service related to cohesion policy so as to streamline the support provided, avoid duplication and maximise synergies and complementarities. They also stressed the need for complementarity with technical assistance measures carried out downstream at national and regional level . Members stressed the need to analyse how Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) activity for the period 2007-2013 has improved project quality and cut the time taken for Commission approval of major projects. They noted that since technical assistance was first used in the area of cohesion policy no global analysis has been done to establish its actual contribution. This has its contribution to administrative capacity-building and institutional strengthening hard to assess and thus to ensure the effective management of ESI Funds. Members called on the Commission to: invest in improving the reporting and evaluation system by developing more appropriate indicators ready for use in the next programming period; prepare measures and resources to set up technical assistance for the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies , having taken into account the varied experiences and rates of success of implementing such strategies, as well as the fact that the strategies' participants include non-Member States and countries with limited funds and insufficient human resources. Lastly, Members stressed the importance of implementing specific technical assistance measures to promote re-industrialisation in depressed areas so as to attract investments in high-tech and innovative sectors with a low environmental impact Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States (Article 59 of the CPR): Members emphasised that technical assistance is different from other actions financed by the ESI Funds and that it is hard to measure its results. There is a need for a strategic and transparent approach, coordinated at the various levels of governance, as well as for flexibility to meet needs identified by managing authorities in the Member States. Members were concerned that: in certain Member States technical assistance does not sufficiently and effectively reach the local and regional authorities, which usually have the lowest administrative capacity. Sound and transparent communication channels need to be established between the different levels of governance in order to successfully implement the ESI Funds and to achieve cohesion policy goals, while restoring trust in the effective functioning of the EU and its policies; in the implementation of integrated actions for sustainable urban development, although tasks are delegated to urban authorities which act as intermediate bodies, they often do not receive the necessary technical assistance for building up their capacity; many Member States are not applying the European code of conduct on partnership which defines the need to help the relevant partners strengthen their institutional capacity in regard to programme preparation and implementation. Members highlighted that increased communication on and the visibility of the results and successes achieved with the support of ESI Funds can contribute to regaining citizens' trust in the EU. They called for the creation of a separate budget for communication within the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member State. Members stressed that, to reduce excessive procedural complications , technical assistance should be increasingly focused on the beneficiary/project level regardless of whether it relates to the public, private or civil society sector. This would ensure the supply of innovative and well-designed projects fitting in with already existing strategies and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Technical assistance must be seen as a simple, flexible instrument that can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances. They called for: better reporting by Member States in the post-2020 period of the types of actions financed by technical assistance, as well as the results achieved; increased use of technical assistance in European Territorial Cooperation and related programmes as those areas have their own specificities and require support in all phases of implementation, so as to enhance that cooperation and increase the stability of the programmes concerned; the Commission to implement an ex-post evaluation of both centrally managed technical assistance and technical assistance under shared management .
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=29547&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170518&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 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-2017-0223 title: T8-0223/2017 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 580 votes to 45, with 3 abstentions, a resolution on future perspectives for Technical Assistance in Cohesion Policy. Members recalled that technical assistance plays an important role in all phases of implementation of cohesion policy . However, local, regional and national authorities often lack the necessary capacity to efficiently and effectively implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds). Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission : Parliament welcomed the Commission’s activities funded by technical assistance, in particular its work on: (i) the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument, (ii) the Competency Framework, (iii) the Self-Assessment Tool, (iv) the Integrity Pacts, (v) the Guide for practitioners on how to avoid the 25 most common errors on public procurement and the Study on stocktaking administrative capacity on public procurement in all Member States. Technical assistance instruments should have a greater role in the post-2020 cohesion policy and urged the Commission to raise awareness at local and regional level regarding their use. Parliament recommended: the scope of the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument to be extended to all partners to ensure the broad exchange of experience , to contribute to capacity building, and to facilitate capitalising on good practices. They stressed the need to continue and improve the work of the Task Force for Better Implementation in order to support Member States experiencing difficulties in implementing cohesion policy; ensure consistency with the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) while stressing that any possible prolongation of the programme should not detract from cohesion policy thematic objectives and that resources should not be taken away from ESI Funds technical assistance; develop a broader technical assistance strategy to ensure more effective coordination covering all DGs that deal with the ESI so as to streamline the support provided and maximise synergies and complementarities; better streamline the technical assistance in order to cover areas where managing authorities and beneficiaries encounter most challenges; analyse how JASPERS activity for the period 2007-2013 providing independent quality review (IQR) has improved project quality and cut the time taken for approval of major projects by the Commission; prepare measures and resources to set up technical assistance for the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies , having taken into account the varied experiences and rates of success of implementing such strategies, as well as the fact that the strategies' participants include non-Member States and countries with limited funds. Noting that since technical assistance was first used in the area of cohesion policy, no global analysis has been done to establish its actual contribution, Members called on the Commission to invest in improving the reporting and evaluation system by developing more appropriate indicators ready for use in the next programming period. The resolution stressed the importance of implementing specific technical assistance measures to promote re-industrialisation in depressed areas so as to attract investments in high-tech and innovative sectors with a low environmental impact. Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States : Parliament emphasised that technical assistance is different from other actions financed by the ESI Funds and that it is hard to measure its results. There is a need for a strategic and transparent approach, coordinated at the various levels of governance, as well as for flexibility to meet needs identified by managing authorities in the Member States. Members were concerned that: in certain Member States technical assistance does not sufficiently and effectively reach the local and regional authorities, which usually have the lowest administrative capacity. Sound and transparent communication channels need to be established between the different levels of governance in order to successfully implement the ESI Funds and to achieve cohesion policy goals, while restoring trust in the effective functioning of the EU and its policies; in the implementation of integrated actions for sustainable urban development , although tasks are delegated to urban authorities which act as intermediate bodies, they often do not receive the necessary technical assistance for building up their capacity; many Member States are not applying the European code of conduct on partnership which defines the need to help the relevant partners strengthen their institutional capacity in regard to programme preparation and implementation. Parliament highlighted that increased communication on and the visibility of the results and successes achieved with the support of ESI Funds can contribute to regaining citizens' trust in the EU. It called for the creation of a separate budget for communication within the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member State. In order to reduce excessive procedural complications, Member States called for technical assistance to be increasingly focused on the beneficiary/project level regardless of whether it relates to the public, private or civil society sector. This would ensure the supply of innovative and well-designed projects fitting in with already existing strategies and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Technical assistance must be seen as a simple, flexible instrument that can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances. Members called for: better reporting by Member States in the post-2020 period of the types of actions financed by technical assistance, as well as the results achieved; increased use of technical assistance in European Territorial Cooperation and related programmes and in the field of cross-border relations; the Commission to implement an ex-post evaluation of both centrally managed technical assistance and technical assistance under shared management.
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
    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/8/08466
    New
    • REGI/8/08466
    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
    • 4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
    New
    4.70.02
    Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
    activities/3/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0223 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0223/2017
    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 initiative report by Ruža TOMAŠIĆ (ECR, HR) on future perspectives for Technical Assistance in Cohesion Policy.

      Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (Article 58 of the Common Provisions Regulation - CPR)

      Members welcomed the Commission’s activities funded by technical assistance, in particular its work on the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument, the Competency Framework and Self-Assessment Tool, the Integrity Pacts, the Guide for practitioners on how to avoid the 25 most common errors on public procurement and the Study on stocktaking administrative capacity on public procurement in all Member States.

      They stressed that technical assistance instruments should have a greater role in the post-2020 cohesion policy and urged the Commission to raise awareness at local and regional level regarding their use.

      Members recommended that the scope of the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER instrument be extended to all partners to ensure the broad exchange of experience, to contribute to capacity building, and to facilitate capitalising on good practices.

      They stressed the need to continue and improve the work of the Task Force for Better Implementation in order to support Member States experiencing difficulties in implementing cohesion policy.

      Members pointed out that the extension of the Structural Reforms Support Programme (SRSP) should not detract from cohesion policy thematic objectives and that resources should not be taken away from ESI Funds technical assistance.

      They suggested the development of a broader technical assistance strategy to ensure more effective coordination covering all DGs that deal with the ESI as well as the activities of the Structural Reform Support Service related to cohesion policy so as to streamline the support provided, avoid duplication and maximise synergies and complementarities. They also stressed the need for complementarity with technical assistance measures carried out downstream at national and regional level.

      Members stressed the need to analyse how Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) activity for the period 2007-2013 has improved project quality and cut the time taken for Commission approval of major projects.

      They noted that since technical assistance was first used in the area of cohesion policy no global analysis has been done to establish its actual contribution. This has its contribution to administrative capacity-building and institutional strengthening hard to assess and thus to ensure the effective management of ESI Funds.

      Members called on the Commission to:

      • invest in improving the reporting and evaluation system by developing more appropriate indicators ready for use in the next programming period;
      • prepare measures and resources to set up technical assistance for the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies, having taken into account the varied experiences and rates of success of implementing such strategies, as well as the fact that the strategies' participants include non-Member States and countries with limited funds and insufficient human resources.

      Lastly, Members stressed the importance of implementing specific technical assistance measures to promote re-industrialisation in depressed areas so as to attract investments in high-tech and innovative sectors with a low environmental impact

      Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States (Article 59 of the CPR): Members emphasised that technical assistance is different from other actions financed by the ESI Funds and that it is hard to measure its results. There is a need for a strategic and transparent approach, coordinated at the various levels of governance, as well as for flexibility to meet needs identified by managing authorities in the Member States.

      Members were concerned that:

      • in certain Member States technical assistance does not sufficiently and effectively reach the local and regional authorities, which usually have the lowest administrative capacity. Sound and transparent communication channels need to be established between the different levels of governance in order to successfully implement the ESI Funds and to achieve cohesion policy goals, while restoring trust in the effective functioning of the EU and its policies;
      • in the implementation of integrated actions for sustainable urban development, although tasks are delegated to urban authorities which act as intermediate bodies, they often do not receive the necessary technical assistance for building up their capacity;
      • many Member States are not applying the European code of conduct on partnership which defines the need to help the relevant partners strengthen their institutional capacity in regard to programme preparation and implementation.

      Members highlighted that increased communication on and the visibility of the results and successes achieved with the support of ESI Funds can contribute to regaining citizens' trust in the EU. They called for the creation of a separate budget for communication within the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member State.

      Members stressed that, to reduce excessive procedural complications, technical assistance should be increasingly focused on the beneficiary/project level regardless of whether it relates to the public, private or civil society sector. This would ensure the supply of innovative and well-designed projects fitting in with already existing strategies and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Technical assistance must be seen as a simple, flexible instrument that can be adjusted to suit changing circumstances.

      They called for:

      • better reporting by Member States in the post-2020 period of the types of actions financed by technical assistance, as well as the results achieved;
      • increased use of technical assistance in European Territorial Cooperation and related programmes as those areas have their own specificities and require support in all phases of implementation, so as to enhance that cooperation and increase the stability of the programmes concerned;
      • the Commission to implement an ex-post evaluation of both centrally managed technical assistance and technical assistance under shared management.
    activities/3
    date
    2017-05-15T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Debate in plenary scheduled
    activities/3/date
    Old
    2017-05-16T00:00:00
    New
    2017-05-18T00:00:00
    activities/3/type
    Old
    Vote in plenary scheduled
    New
    Debate in plenary scheduled
    activities/2/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0180&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0180/2017
    activities/2
    date
    2017-05-04T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    procedure/stage_reached
    Old
    Awaiting committee decision
    New
    Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
    activities/1
    date
    2017-04-25T00:00:00
    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/type
    Old
    Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
    New
    Debate in plenary scheduled
    activities/2
    date
    2017-05-16T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Vote in plenary scheduled
    activities/0/committees/0/date
    2016-11-09T00:00:00
    activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur
    • group: ALDE name: ARTHUIS Jean
    committees/0/date
    2016-11-09T00:00:00
    committees/0/rapporteur
    • group: ALDE name: ARTHUIS Jean
    activities/1
    date
    2017-05-15T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
    activities/0/committees/1/date
    2016-09-08T00:00:00
    activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur
    • group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
    committees/1/date
    2016-09-08T00:00:00
    committees/1/rapporteur
    • group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
    activities/0/committees/1/date
    2016-09-08T00:00:00
    activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur
    • group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
    committees/1/date
    2016-09-08T00:00:00
    committees/1/rapporteur
    • group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
    activities/0/committees/1/shadows/0
    group
    EPP
    name
    SPYRAKI Maria
    committees/1/shadows/0
    group
    EPP
    name
    SPYRAKI Maria
    activities/0
    date
    2016-11-24T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    committees
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    REGI/8/08466
    procedure/stage_reached
    Old
    Preparatory phase in Parliament
    New
    Awaiting committee decision
    activities
      committees
      • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2016-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ARTHUIS Jean
      • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: MIHAYLOVA Iskra group: GUE/NGL name: JUARISTI ABAUNZ Josu group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2016-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža
      links
      other
        procedure
        reference
        2016/2303(INI)
        title
        Future perspectives for technical assistance in cohesion policy
        legal_basis
        Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
        stage_reached
        Preparatory phase in Parliament
        subtype
        Initiative
        type
        INI - Own-initiative procedure
        subject
        4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)