BETA


2016/2326(INI) Building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI WESTPHAL Kerstin (icon: S&D S&D) HETMAN Krzysztof (icon: PPE PPE), TOMAŠIĆ Ruža (icon: ECR ECR), VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs (icon: ALDE ALDE), OMARJEE Younous (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), REINTKE Terry (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), D'AMATO Rosa (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion BUDG OLBRYCHT Jan (icon: PPE PPE) Derek VAUGHAN (icon: S&D S&D)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2017/06/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2017/06/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 350 votes to 149, with 171 abstentions, a resolution on building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy.

Members recalled that cohesion policy at European level was very effective and that it remained - in its economic, social and territorial dimension – a necessary policy which combines the specific needs of a territory with EU priorities and delivers tangible results on the ground for all citizens. They called on the Commission to present a comprehensive legislative proposal for a strong and effective cohesion policy post-2020 and considered it essential that cohesion policy should have an adequate budget .

The increasing constraints on both the EU and the national budgets and the consequences of Brexit should not lead to EU cohesion policy being weakened.

Added value of EU cohesion policy : Parliament stressed the importance of shared management , which is based on the partnership principle, multilevel governance and the coordination of different administrative levels, in order to achieve regional, economic and social convergence. Regretting the late adoption of several operational programmes during the current programming period, it welcomed the first signs of the accelerated implementation of the operational programmes observed during 2016 and urged the Commission to continue as such.

Members stressed the importance of:

proposing practical ways and measures of avoiding such problems at the outset of the next programming period; addressing the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system leading to the accumulation of unpaid bills and the build-up of an unprecedented backlog that rolled over from the last MFF to the current one; the early involvement of all stakeholders, including from civil society, with a view to ensuring increased accountability and visibility in the implementation of cohesion policy; strengthening measures to reduce regional disparities and prevent the emergence of new disparities in all types of regions ; continuing to seek cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as part of the aim to strengthen territorial cohesion and to extend funding opportunities to the next post-2020 Interreg Europe programme.

Architecture : Parliament underlined that the current categorisation of regions, the reforms introduced, such as thematic concentration, and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy. The value of ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for smart specialisation has also been highlighted.

Members highlighted the need for:

greater flexibility in the implementation of the EU budget in order to respond to unforeseen events and to adapt ESIF investments to the changing needs of each region; the creation of a reserve is an interesting option in this context; address the impact of investments on the budget deficits of the Member State governments; a balanced link between cohesion policy and economic governance process in the framework of the European Semester ; greater consideration of the territorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester; strengthened national and regional agencies for supporting investments to improve administrative and institutional capacity in the programming, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes; the simplification of the cohesion policy’s overall management system at all levels of governance by facilitating the programming, management and evaluation of operational programmes: improvements are possible in terms of multiple layers of audit, as well as the number of controls, in order to achieve greater harmonisation between cohesion policy, competition policy and other Union policies, in particular state aid rules; financial instruments to be with caution : grants should be complemented only where such financial instruments demonstrate an added value and could have a leverage effect by attracting additional financial support; synergies and communication between ESI Funds and other Union funds and programmes, including EFSI, to be strengthened and that multi-fund operations are implemented; the development of a set of indicators (taking into account the Social Progress Index or a demographic indicator) that complement the GDP indicator.

Parliament opposed macro-economic conditionalities and highlighted that the link between cohesion policy and economic governance processes in the European Semester must be balanced, reciprocal and non-punitive towards all the interested parties.

Key policy areas for a modernised cohesion policy after 2020 : Parliament is of the view that combating unemployment remains a priority and that cohesion policy should continue to care for the vulnerable and marginalised , address growing inequalities and build solidarity through co-investments in education, training and culture.

Other important areas are: (i) the fight against climate change and the effects of demographic change; (ii) innovation, SMEs in job creation; (iii) sustainable urban development and urban innovative actions; (iv) the digital agenda, including the provision of the necessary infrastructure and advanced technological solutions.

The resolution stressed the importance of partnerships between rural and urban areas . It welcomed the Pact of Amsterdam and the better recognition accorded to the role of cities and urban areas in European policy-making. In addition, the increased visibility of the cohesion policy is vital to fight against euroscepticism.

Lastly, Members called for the Commission’s preparation of the new legislative framework to start in due time so that the post-2020 cohesion policy may be implemented at the start of the new programming period.

Documents
2017/06/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2017/06/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/05/24
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Kerstin WESTPHAL (S&D, DE) on building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy.

Members recalled that cohesion policy at European level was very effective and that it remained - in its economic, social and territorial dimension – a necessary policy which combines the specific needs of a territory with EU priorities and delivers tangible results on the ground for all citizens. They called on the Commission to present a comprehensive legislative proposal for a strong and effective cohesion policy post-2020 and considered it essential that cohesion policy should have an adequate budget .

The increasing constraints on both the EU and the national budgets and the consequences of Brexit should not lead to EU cohesion policy being weakened.

Added value of EU cohesion policy : the report stressed the importance of shared management, which is based on the partnership principle, multilevel governance and the coordination of different administrative levels, in order to achieve regional, economic and social convergence. It called for optimal coordination and cooperation between the Commission DG responsible for cohesion policy and other DGs, as well as with national, regional and local authorities.

Members stressed the importance of:

addressing the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system leading to the accumulation of unpaid bills and the build-up of an unprecedented backlog that rolled over from the last MFF to the current one; the early involvement of all stakeholders, including from civil society, with a view to ensuring increased accountability and visibility in the implementation of cohesion policy without increasing administrative burdens or causing delays; strengthening measures to reduce regional disparities and prevent the emergence of new disparities in all types of regions ; continuing to seek cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as part of the aim to strengthen territorial cohesion and to extend funding opportunities to the next post-2020 Interreg Europe programme.

Architecture : Members underlined that the current categorisation of regions, the reforms introduced, such as thematic concentration, and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy. The value of ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for smart specialisation has also been highlighted.

Members highlighted the need for:

greater flexibility in the implementation of the EU budget in order to respond to unforeseen events and to adapt ESIF investments to the changing needs of each region; a balanced link between cohesion policy and economic governance process in the framework of the European Semester ; greater consideration of the territorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester; strengthened national and regional agencies for supporting investments to improve administrative and institutional capacity in the programming, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes; the simplification of the cohesion policy’s overall management system at all levels of governance by facilitating the programming, management and evaluation of operational programmes: improvements are possible in terms of multiple layers of audit, as well as the number of controls, in order to achieve greater harmonisation between cohesion policy, competition policy and other Union policies, in particular state aid rules; financial instruments to be with caution : grants should be complemented only where such financial instruments demonstrate an added value and could have a leverage effect by attracting additional financial support; synergies and communication between ESI Funds and other Union funds and programmes, including EFSI, to be strengthened and that multi-fund operations are implemented; the development of a set of indicators (taking into account the Social Progress Index or a demographic indicator) that complement the GDP indicator.

Key policy areas for a modernised cohesion policy after 2020 : Members are of the view that combating unemployment remains a priority and that cohesion policy should continue to care for the vulnerable and marginalised , address growing inequalities and build solidarity through co-investments in education, training and culture.

Other important areas are the fight against climate change and the effects of demographic change, innovation, SMEs in job creation, as well as sustainable urban development and urban innovative actions.

Members stressed the importance of partnerships between rural and urban areas .

In addition, the increased visibility of the cohesion policy is vital to fight against euroscepticism.

Members called for the Commission’s preparation of the new legislative framework to start in due time so that the post-2020 cohesion policy may be implemented at the start of the new programming period.

Documents
2017/05/18
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2017/04/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/04/04
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/02/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2017/01/19
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2016/11/24
   EP - OLBRYCHT Jan (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2016/11/09
   EP - WESTPHAL Kerstin (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Votes

A8-0202/2017 - Kerstin Westphal - Am 1=2

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 298, -: 275, 0: 93
IT ES FR GB RO SE PT IE EL CY MT HR ?? LT FI LU DK EE HU SI BG LV SK AT NL BE CZ DE PL
Total
64
49
60
60
30
19
19
9
19
5
5
10
1
9
8
6
11
6
19
6
14
7
12
16
23
19
20
90
49
icon: S&D S&D
172

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Finland S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
3

Estonia S&D

Abstain (1)

1
4

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

For (1)

4

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

4
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

France EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

For (1)

1

Germany EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

United Kingdom ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

2
icon: NI NI
16

France NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

3

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Italy ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Bulgaria ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1

Romania ALDE

Against (1)

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE PPE
195

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Finland PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1
4

Latvia PPE

3

Austria PPE

3

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

A8-0202/2017 - Kerstin Westphal - Am 3

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 399, -: 194, 0: 72
DE PL GB CZ SE AT BG PT SK HU NL BE DK LT ES HR SI LU EE RO LV FI IE ?? CY MT FR EL IT
Total
90
49
60
19
19
16
14
19
12
19
23
19
11
9
48
9
6
6
6
30
7
8
9
1
5
5
60
19
66
icon: PPE PPE
192

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Romania ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1
3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Slovakia ECR

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Cyprus ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2
icon: S&D S&D
174
4

Netherlands S&D

3

Belgium S&D

4

Lithuania S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Hungary Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Croatia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

France Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

2

Poland NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3
3

France NI

Against (1)

2
icon: ENF ENF
29

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Italy GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

A8-0202/2017 - Kerstin Westphal - Résolution

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 350, 0: 171, -: 149
IT ES DE PL RO PT FR HU IE SE MT CY BG LT SK HR EL DK LV SI LU AT GB CZ FI EE ?? BE NL
Total
66
49
90
49
30
20
60
19
9
19
5
5
14
9
12
10
19
11
7
6
6
16
60
20
9
6
1
19
23
icon: S&D S&D
175

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Czechia S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Finland S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
4

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3
icon: PPE PPE
196

Ireland PPE

For (1)

4

Sweden PPE

Against (1)

3

Malta PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

For (1)

3
5

Denmark PPE

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia PPE

Abstain (1)

3

Slovenia PPE

4

Luxembourg PPE

3

Austria PPE

3

Finland PPE

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium PPE

Abstain (2)

4
icon: ECR ECR
67

Italy ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1

Bulgaria ECR

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

Against (1)

2

Finland ECR

1

Belgium ECR

4

Netherlands ECR

2
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

1

France NI

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

Abstain (1)

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
29
2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

Abstain (1)

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Germany ALDE

For (1)

3

Romania ALDE

Against (1)

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ALDE

For (1)

4

Lithuania ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1

Finland ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

3

ALDE

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
321 2016/2326(INI)
2017/04/04 REGI 301 amendments...
source: 602.804
2017/04/05 BUDG 20 amendments...
source: 602.834

History

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

events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0202&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0202_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0254
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0254_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: WESTPHAL Kerstin date: 2016-11-09T00:00:00 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
2016-11-09T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WESTPHAL Kerstin group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: OLBRYCHT Jan date: 2016-11-24T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-11-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: OLBRYCHT Jan group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-11-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: OLBRYCHT Jan group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-11-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: OLBRYCHT Jan group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
committees
  • type: Responsible Committee body: EP associated: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI date: 2016-11-09T00:00:00 rapporteur: name: WESTPHAL Kerstin group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D shadows: name: HETMAN Krzysztof group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE name: TOMAŠIĆ Ruža group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR name: VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE name: OMARJEE Younous group: European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL name: REINTKE Terry group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE name: D'AMATO Rosa group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
  • type: Committee Opinion body: EP associated: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG date: 2016-11-24T00:00:00 rapporteur: name: OLBRYCHT Jan group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
docs
  • date: 2017-02-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.838 title: PE599.838 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2017-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.804 title: PE602.804 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2017-04-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE600.934&secondRef=02 title: PE600.934 committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
events
  • date: 2017-01-19T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-18T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-24T00:00:00 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=A8-2017-0202&language=EN title: A8-0202/2017 summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Kerstin WESTPHAL (S&D, DE) on building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy. Members recalled that cohesion policy at European level was very effective and that it remained - in its economic, social and territorial dimension – a necessary policy which combines the specific needs of a territory with EU priorities and delivers tangible results on the ground for all citizens. They called on the Commission to present a comprehensive legislative proposal for a strong and effective cohesion policy post-2020 and considered it essential that cohesion policy should have an adequate budget . The increasing constraints on both the EU and the national budgets and the consequences of Brexit should not lead to EU cohesion policy being weakened. Added value of EU cohesion policy : the report stressed the importance of shared management, which is based on the partnership principle, multilevel governance and the coordination of different administrative levels, in order to achieve regional, economic and social convergence. It called for optimal coordination and cooperation between the Commission DG responsible for cohesion policy and other DGs, as well as with national, regional and local authorities. Members stressed the importance of: addressing the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system leading to the accumulation of unpaid bills and the build-up of an unprecedented backlog that rolled over from the last MFF to the current one; the early involvement of all stakeholders, including from civil society, with a view to ensuring increased accountability and visibility in the implementation of cohesion policy without increasing administrative burdens or causing delays; strengthening measures to reduce regional disparities and prevent the emergence of new disparities in all types of regions ; continuing to seek cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as part of the aim to strengthen territorial cohesion and to extend funding opportunities to the next post-2020 Interreg Europe programme. Architecture : Members underlined that the current categorisation of regions, the reforms introduced, such as thematic concentration, and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy. The value of ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for smart specialisation has also been highlighted. Members highlighted the need for: greater flexibility in the implementation of the EU budget in order to respond to unforeseen events and to adapt ESIF investments to the changing needs of each region; a balanced link between cohesion policy and economic governance process in the framework of the European Semester ; greater consideration of the territorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester; strengthened national and regional agencies for supporting investments to improve administrative and institutional capacity in the programming, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes; the simplification of the cohesion policy’s overall management system at all levels of governance by facilitating the programming, management and evaluation of operational programmes: improvements are possible in terms of multiple layers of audit, as well as the number of controls, in order to achieve greater harmonisation between cohesion policy, competition policy and other Union policies, in particular state aid rules; financial instruments to be with caution : grants should be complemented only where such financial instruments demonstrate an added value and could have a leverage effect by attracting additional financial support; synergies and communication between ESI Funds and other Union funds and programmes, including EFSI, to be strengthened and that multi-fund operations are implemented; the development of a set of indicators (taking into account the Social Progress Index or a demographic indicator) that complement the GDP indicator. Key policy areas for a modernised cohesion policy after 2020 : Members are of the view that combating unemployment remains a priority and that cohesion policy should continue to care for the vulnerable and marginalised , address growing inequalities and build solidarity through co-investments in education, training and culture. Other important areas are the fight against climate change and the effects of demographic change, innovation, SMEs in job creation, as well as sustainable urban development and urban innovative actions. Members stressed the importance of partnerships between rural and urban areas . In addition, the increased visibility of the cohesion policy is vital to fight against euroscepticism. Members called for the Commission’s preparation of the new legislative framework to start in due time so that the post-2020 cohesion policy may be implemented at the start of the new programming period.
  • date: 2017-06-12T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170612&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=29869&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 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-2017-0254 title: T8-0254/2017 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 350 votes to 149, with 171 abstentions, a resolution on building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy. Members recalled that cohesion policy at European level was very effective and that it remained - in its economic, social and territorial dimension – a necessary policy which combines the specific needs of a territory with EU priorities and delivers tangible results on the ground for all citizens. They called on the Commission to present a comprehensive legislative proposal for a strong and effective cohesion policy post-2020 and considered it essential that cohesion policy should have an adequate budget . The increasing constraints on both the EU and the national budgets and the consequences of Brexit should not lead to EU cohesion policy being weakened. Added value of EU cohesion policy : Parliament stressed the importance of shared management , which is based on the partnership principle, multilevel governance and the coordination of different administrative levels, in order to achieve regional, economic and social convergence. Regretting the late adoption of several operational programmes during the current programming period, it welcomed the first signs of the accelerated implementation of the operational programmes observed during 2016 and urged the Commission to continue as such. Members stressed the importance of: proposing practical ways and measures of avoiding such problems at the outset of the next programming period; addressing the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system leading to the accumulation of unpaid bills and the build-up of an unprecedented backlog that rolled over from the last MFF to the current one; the early involvement of all stakeholders, including from civil society, with a view to ensuring increased accountability and visibility in the implementation of cohesion policy; strengthening measures to reduce regional disparities and prevent the emergence of new disparities in all types of regions ; continuing to seek cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as part of the aim to strengthen territorial cohesion and to extend funding opportunities to the next post-2020 Interreg Europe programme. Architecture : Parliament underlined that the current categorisation of regions, the reforms introduced, such as thematic concentration, and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy. The value of ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for smart specialisation has also been highlighted. Members highlighted the need for: greater flexibility in the implementation of the EU budget in order to respond to unforeseen events and to adapt ESIF investments to the changing needs of each region; the creation of a reserve is an interesting option in this context; address the impact of investments on the budget deficits of the Member State governments; a balanced link between cohesion policy and economic governance process in the framework of the European Semester ; greater consideration of the territorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester; strengthened national and regional agencies for supporting investments to improve administrative and institutional capacity in the programming, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes; the simplification of the cohesion policy’s overall management system at all levels of governance by facilitating the programming, management and evaluation of operational programmes: improvements are possible in terms of multiple layers of audit, as well as the number of controls, in order to achieve greater harmonisation between cohesion policy, competition policy and other Union policies, in particular state aid rules; financial instruments to be with caution : grants should be complemented only where such financial instruments demonstrate an added value and could have a leverage effect by attracting additional financial support; synergies and communication between ESI Funds and other Union funds and programmes, including EFSI, to be strengthened and that multi-fund operations are implemented; the development of a set of indicators (taking into account the Social Progress Index or a demographic indicator) that complement the GDP indicator. Parliament opposed macro-economic conditionalities and highlighted that the link between cohesion policy and economic governance processes in the European Semester must be balanced, reciprocal and non-punitive towards all the interested parties. Key policy areas for a modernised cohesion policy after 2020 : Parliament is of the view that combating unemployment remains a priority and that cohesion policy should continue to care for the vulnerable and marginalised , address growing inequalities and build solidarity through co-investments in education, training and culture. Other important areas are: (i) the fight against climate change and the effects of demographic change; (ii) innovation, SMEs in job creation; (iii) sustainable urban development and urban innovative actions; (iv) the digital agenda, including the provision of the necessary infrastructure and advanced technological solutions. The resolution stressed the importance of partnerships between rural and urban areas . It welcomed the Pact of Amsterdam and the better recognition accorded to the role of cities and urban areas in European policy-making. In addition, the increased visibility of the cohesion policy is vital to fight against euroscepticism. Lastly, Members called for the Commission’s preparation of the new legislative framework to start in due time so that the post-2020 cohesion policy may be implemented at the start of the new programming period.
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
procedure
reference
2016/2326(INI)
title
Building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy
subject
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subtype
Initiative
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure EP 54
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
stage_reached
Procedure completed
dossier_of_the_committee
REGI/8/08792