2023/2121(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

– having regard to the Paris Agreement (COP21);

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Draws attention to the fact that greater attention needs to be devoted to Europe's regions, given that the green transitions may have an adverse impact on them and create even greater disparities if not properly managed;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that cohesion investments should remain under shared management for programming and implementation in order to cater for local needs of regions, urban, rural and remote areas, and in line with the "do no harm to cohesion" principle; acknowledges that co-programming, co-financing, co- responsibility and co- ownership are the most effective and sustainable methods for successful implementation of any EU investment policy and any EU-financed project; furthermore, stresses the crucial role that investments in high quality public services have on building social resilience and coping with economic, health and social crises;

Amendment 102 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that cohesion investments should remain under shared management for programming and implementation in order to ~~cater for local needs of~~be able to respond to the needs of Member States, regions, urban, rural and remote areas; acknowledges that co-programming, co- financing, co-responsibility and co- ownership are the most effective methods for successful implementation of any EU investment policy and any EU-financed project;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that the climate change effects underdeveloped regions disproportionally; therefore highlights the need to increase efforts to fight climate change and enhance climate mitigation particularly in those regions; emphasises that cohesion policy must support a strong climate mainstreaming in all sectors and ensure that all EU funding programmes and projects are embedded in strategies that support ambitious climate objectives; highlights the importance that regional environmental strategies are linked with ambitious climate targets that go beyond the overall target of achieving a climate neutral EU by 2050;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Strongly believes in the importance of the horizontal principles and of a binding "partnership principle" in all Member States, which should remain guiding principles of cohesion policy post-2027;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Opposes any renationalisation of cohesion policy;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Highlights the impact that climate change related phenomena have on less developed regions and their economies, on working conditions particularly in the most exposed sectors and professions; believes that green collective bargaining is essential for both the workers and the employers to address the impact of the green transition on territorial and social cohesion, health and safety at work, the training and reskilling of workers and the creation of new quality jobs within the current changing labour market;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Considers that climate mainstreaming and climate proofing mechanisms should be an integral part of programming and implementation, in particular project selection;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Recalls that in the 21-27 cohesion policy framework gender equality and a gender perspective must be included and promoted throughout all stages of the process to prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate cohesion programmes;

Amendment 109 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2 e. Highlights that in the event of EU enlargement, average GDP per capita may fall in the EU, therefore calls the Commission to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing new framework for cohesion policy post-2027, in order to continue the assistance to all regions and that any unfavourable consequence on cohesion policy eligibility can be duly addressed;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on EU border regions: living labs of European integration14a _________________ 14a OJ C 125, 5.4.2023, p. 114–123

Amendment 110 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should not be used for new non-cohesion policy instruments and programmes, either within or outside the MFF; stresses that flexibility in the repurposing of cohesion funding should be a bottom-up driven process, initiated either by a Member State or by its regional or local level; underlines the main purpose of the EU's cohesion policy to reduce disparities among Member States and especially between regions in the Member States; acknowledges that cohesion policy has succeeded in reducing disparities among Member States, while in some Member States the disparities between regions have increased;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should not be used for ~~new~~ non- cohesion policy instruments and programmes, either within or outside the MFF~~; stresses that flexibility in the~~, including through optional transfers; acknowledges the need for built-in crisis flexibility including through repurposing of cohesion funding; s~~hould be a bottom-up driven process, initiated either~~tresses, however, that such process should not be triggered by new legislative initiatives of the Commission but by athe Member State ~~or by its~~s in a bottom-up fashion, initiated by a central government after binding consultations with regional orand local levels;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 113 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should ~~not be used~~be primarily used for cohesion policy goals and not for new non-cohesion policy instruments and programmes, either within or outside the MFF; stresses that flexibility in the repurposing of cohesion funding should be a bottom-up driven process, initiated ~~either by a Member State or by its regional or local level~~by the managing authorities of the programmes;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should not be ~~used for~~channelled into new non-cohesion policy instruments and programmes, either within or outside the MFF; stresses that flexibility in the repurposing of cohesion funding should be a bottom-up driven process, initiated either by a Member State or by its regional or local level;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Over the past few years, the European Union has adopted a succession of new funding programmes and funds intended to provide a rapid and urgent response to the successive crises that we have suffered: pandemic, invasion of Ukraine, inflation and rising energy prices, natural disasters... All of them demonstrated the European Union’s rapid and efficient reaction capacity, but in turn have led to a collapse of state and regional public administrations as they are unable to absorb and manage so many new funds. This has led to lower implementation levels and unnecessary competition between different EU programmes; a detailed evaluation of the various European Union programmes and funds is necessary in order to simplify them as much as possible and make things easier for potential beneficiaries and managers, eliminating unnecessary duplication which only results in more bureaucracy, administrative burdens and slow implementation; successful EU programmes such as the Structural and Investment Funds should serve as a model and ought to be able to be improved, incorporating some of the initiatives that so many new programmes or funds aim to cover. The solution to all problems arising in the Union cannot always lie in the creation of a new programme but rather in the improvement and efficiency of existing ones;

Amendment 116 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Underlines that cohesion policy must not contribute to misuse of EU funds or further deterioration of the Rule of Law and democracy in Member States; expects therefore that the Commission takes fully into consideration the aspects of the Rule of Law throughout the ongoing negotiations regarding the Partnership Agreements and cohesion policy programmes; requires that the Commission analyses whether the draft documents already submitted or expected to be sent in the future are in full compliance with the enabling conditions on the effective application and implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as outlined in the Annex III of the Common Provisions Regulation, and not to approve any Partnership Agreement or programme before this in depth analysis on these specific aspects leads to a high level of assurance of no risks;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. - Stresses the need for the "do no harm to cohesion" principle to apply to all EU policies so that they support the objectives of social, economic and territorial cohesion, as referred to in Article 3 of the TFEU and Article 174 TFEU; insists that promoting cohesion should also be seen as a way to foster solidarity and mutual support among Member States and their regions, which is essential for strengthening the resilience of all of its actors, such as municipalities and regions and for maintaining peace, stability and security in Europe;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Is of the view that simplification should be one of the key drivers of the future cohesion policy; considers it necessary to increase the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs), streamline public procurement procedures, improve the articulation of cohesion policy with State aid rules, implement the single audit principle and identify “one-stop shops” for potential beneficiaries; invites the Member States to avoid over-regulation in order to ensure legal stability for the beneficiaries;

Amendment 119 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes the introduction of the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle, which is defined as ‘no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities’; calls on the Commission to strengthen and develop this principle as part of the European Semester and to involve local and regional authorities at all stages of the procedures linked with the European Semester and its country-specific recommendations (CSRs);

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy post-2027 of ~~XXX~~29 November 2023 ,

Amendment 120 #

Matthias ECKE, Hannes HEIDE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Corina CREȚU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Emphasises that cohesion policy must better adapt to challenges posed by the green, digital and industrial transitions in order to remain relevant in the future and achieve the objectives set out in the Treaties. To achieve this, it is important to learn from the outgoing funding period, but also from other instruments such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF);

Amendment 121 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls for the discontinuation of the macroeconomic conditionality in the post- 2027 period because the link between the EU economic governance framework and cohesion policy must not be based on a punitive approach holding European Structural and Investment (and other EU funding programmes) Funds hostage to national decisions;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls for the restoration, under the Common Provisions Regulations, of the Rural Development Fund; such a fund should be managed regionally or with decisive regional participation, placing greater emphasis than before on structural policy measures in sparsely populated areas;

Amendment 123 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that Article 174 TFEU is designed to lead to specific policies being created for territories and regions facing particular problems; notes in this connection that the European Union has drawn up an urban agenda and a rural agenda, and that an island agenda is expected;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Recalls the “do no harm to cohesion” principle, introduced by the 8th Cohesion Report and meaning no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities; calls for a stronger integration of this principle as cross-cutting principle in EU policies;

Amendment 125 #

Matthias ECKE, Hannes HEIDE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Corina CREȚU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Is convinced that the principles underpinning the idea of a just transition should guide the next programming period of cohesion policy funds; points out in that respect that the Just Transition Fund should be extended in the programming period post-2027 and endowed with additional financial means in order to support regions that are highly dependent on sectors which are undergoing a deep transformation due to the green and digital transition; takes the view that this extension of the JTF should be focused on the appropriate nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) level, take into account regional specificities, have a wider scope than the present JTF, be designed in such a way as to allow for prompt responses to newly arising challenges across various sectors and industries and be fully integrated in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR);

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Calls on the Commission to include in its CSRs a state-of-play of cohesion at NUTS 2 level in the Member States to monitor lagging regions’ level of convergence towards the EU average and to include an analysis of existing policies that could explain the situation and possible measures in order to solve regional disparities; believes that CSRs should establish measurable and binding targets on social objectives at territorial level that aim to reduce inequalities and social economic exclusion, in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals;

Amendment 127 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Stresses that all EU regions should remain eligible for funding in the future; points out that, in the event of the future EU enlargement, average GDP per capita may fall in the EU, as a consequence of the “statistical effect”; asks therefore the European Commission to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing a new regulation for the post-2027 cohesion policy so that it is equipped to continue to support all regions and so that any unfavourable consequence on the regions, caused by a "statistical effect" on cohesion policy eligibility, can be duly addressed;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 349 TFEU, the outermost regions must continue to benefit from policies and regulatory provisions adapted to their structural constraints and specific needs; takes the view that the outermost regions should be considered part of the less developed regions category;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Calls for a revision of the Economic Governance Framework, including the Stability and Growth Pact, and to introduce a golden rule for cohesion policy investments, including the co-financing of EU Structural and Investment Funds, in order not to undermine urgently needed investments in cohesion measures and the common priorities of the Union ;

Amendment 13 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)

– having regard to the report on the role of Cohesion Policy in addressing multidimensional environmental challenges in the Mediterranean basin (2022/2059(INI)),

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Points out that possible enlargements of the EU will affect all regions; calls on the Commission to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing a new regulation for the post- 2027 cohesion policy in order to mitigate the effects;

Amendment 131 #

Matthias ECKE, Hannes HEIDE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Corina CREȚU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Regrets that delays in the multiannual financial framework (MFF) negotiations led to considerable delays in the current programming period 2021- 2027, impacting beneficiaries and especially management authorities that face an enormous burden having to deal with both the finalisation of the outgoing funding period and the start of the current funding period; calls on the Commission, therefore, to assess the legal possibility of creating two distinct parts within the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), namely the content-related part (political) and the MFF-related part (financial resources), for the programming period post-2027; believes that the content- related part should be negotiated and concluded before the MFF-related part, to allow for management authorities to start preparing in a timely manner, in order to ensure a genuine partnership principle and an efficient use of cohesion policy instruments;

Amendment 132 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Stresses that economic, social and territorial development continues to be very uneven across the EU, and that major inequalities persist between Member States, between regions (including regions within the same Member State), between different types of area (as referred to in Article 174 and Article 349 TFEU), and within the richest urban areas;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Stresses that GDP as the sole indicator of development fails to take into account all aspects of development; recalls that in addition to economic issues, health, education, sustainability, equity and social inclusion are integral parts of the EU development model; calls for GDP to be complemented with new criteria (e.g. social, environmental, demographic);

Amendment 134 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Calls for the discontinuation of the macroeconomic conditionality in the post- 2027 period because the link between the EU economic governance framework and cohesion policy must not be based on a punitive approach holding European Structural and Investment (and other EU funding programmes) Funds hostage to national decisions;

Amendment 135 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Is convinced, considering the structural changes linked to the twin - green and digital - transition and its uneven economic and social impact on EU regions, that the principle of just transition, with no territory and no one left behind should guide the next programming period of the Cohesion policy;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Underlines the multi-dimensional nature of rural development, which goes beyond agriculture per se; insists on the need to implement a rural proofing mechanism to assess the impact of EU legislative initiatives on rural areas; notes, however, that only 11,5 % of people living in rural areas work in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; calls, therefore, for the reintegration of the EAFRD under the strategic framework of the CPR as a separate fund; emphasises that being part of the cohesion policy funds strengthens the possibilities and synergies – via an integrated, multi-fund approach – for investments in rural areas beyond agriculture and for regional development;

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Expresses concern about how further EU enlargement will affect the current classification of different regions, given that the average GDP per capita could fall significantly; calls for consultation and structured work between the European Commission and the European Parliament on this matter before a new legislative proposal is brought forward;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Calls on the European Commission to simplify future cohesion policy;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Notes that although real progress has been made (especially with regard to simplified costs), there is still a long way to go in terms of simplifying matters for final beneficiaries and making legal processes more secure for managing authorities; stresses that this has been felt in particular in the excessive amount of checks on funds; calls for the rules for extrapolating the error rate to be dropped, as their application has proven to be arbitrary for the managing authorities;

Amendment 14 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

– Having regard to the opinion "The future of Cohesion Policy post-2027" of the European Committee of the Regions adopted on 29 November 2023,

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)

3g. Calls on the European Commission to assess the possibility of a mid-term review of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy regulations in order to simplify fund procedures for final beneficiaries and managing authorities;

Amendment 141 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

Local and regional focus

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Asks the Commission to adjust the methodology to determine the level of support based on a region’s characteristics, such as areas with growth potential, the intensity of their particular challenges or their level of exposure to the impacts of ongoing transitions, to better define the path of each region towards convergence;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Believes that the trade-off between the necessary place-based orientation and the support to Union thematic priorities could be addressed through higher flexibility, a selectable menu of thematic objectives and challenges, accessible by regions proportionally to their development levels and needs; underlines that such a model reduces the rigidity of the programming process and factors in regional characteristics; stresses that cohesion policy should continue tracking the local landscape of needs in order to address them effectively in the context of closing regional disparities across the EU;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Believes that streamlining the architecture of EU funding instruments should be achieved through a merger of Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund +, Just Transition Fund, possibly extended to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, while the latter should be covered by the Common Provisions Regulation; acknowledges that such a reform would dramatically simplify the programming and implementation of the policy, enhance its visibility and effectiveness, and improve beneficiaries' accessibility; stresses that the adoption of individual fund specific regulations increases implementation delays and programming complexity; notes that such a grouping of funds should preserve the thematic orientation of the financing as well as the proportions of the individual financing streams for the respective fields;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Calls for an enlargement-ready cohesion policy by 2030 at the latest; stresses that existing cohesion policy budget cannot and must not cater for the expected reconstruction financing demand; stresses that existing cohesion policy budget should focus on convergence objectives; stresses that any reconstruction objectives should be achieved through distinct financing mechanisms, outside the scope of the MFF, through direct budgetary contributions from Member States, the private sector and external resources;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3 e. Believes that the legislative proposal for the future cohesion policy must be released only after it takes into consideration the outcomes of a major consultation effort and an EU-wide line- up of events and formats on the ground that bring together all levels of governance and all other stakeholders;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3 f. Believes that cohesion policy needs major simplification, which should also enable accelerated implementation and absorption pace; calls, in this regard, for drastic modernisation of the delivery model - a shift from an activity-to- payment cycle to a performance-based implementation, based on tangible milestones, together with linkage to regional growth enhancing reforms underscoring the basics of cohesion policy; underlines that such a change should not undermine transparency, accountability and the protection of Union's financial interests; notes that audit and control system should nonetheless be adapted to the decoupling of payments from real expenditure and that further exploration of reliance on national systems is necessary;

Amendment 148 #

André ROUGÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion ~~and other events~~, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, tropical storms, rising sea levels and other events such as droughts, particularly in the outermost regions (ORs), where they are likely to exacerbate the problems populations are already facing in accessing water;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on ~~climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effe~~risk reduction and preparedness for a broad spectrum of disasters (climate-related, geological, health-related, man-made); believes that this should include a strong focus on climate change adaptation to help local authorities better manage risk and prepare to respond to the local impacts of climate change ~~locally (~~from slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), (including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion andmong other ~~event~~s);

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

– having regard to the study “EU lagging regions: state of play and future challenges” of September 2020 (PE 652.215),

Amendment 150 #

Maria Angela DANZÌ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events and on prevention and ensuring areas' safety;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions and the outermost regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, desertification, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events;

Amendment 152 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure sustainable investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, strong winds, floods, landslides, heatwaves, rise of sea levels, coastal erosion and other events;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions, outermost regions and island territories; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events;

Amendment 154 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration orand a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local and regional infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather ~~event~~conditions), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other ~~event~~natural disasters;

Amendment 155 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for climate adaptation, disaster prevention ~~and~~, preparedness and remedy investments to be guaranteed ~~either~~ through a dedicated ~~policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition~~and sufficiently funded permanent strategic mechanism beyond the Solidarity Fund to ensure investments in respective local infrastructure and risk man~~agement in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions~~d disaster management; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes the creation of the Just Transition Fund to support the regions most exposed socio-economically to the transition to carbon neutrality; calls on the Commission to draw lessons from the implementation of this fund and to clarify its objectives; calls for an JTF II, which should be fully integrated into the CPR, to be set up for the programming period after 2027, and for the principles of shared management and partnership to be applied; believes that regions with high per capita CO2 emissions, as well as industries in transition, should be able to access this fund; calls for this new JTF to distinguish between climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses that a share of funding should be devoted to socially just transition, and to reducing the Union's carbon footprint;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Strongly supports the implementation of the rule of law conditionality in all Members States; believes that cohesion policy must not contribute to misuse of EU funds and expects therefore that the Commission takes fully into consideration the aspects of the Rule of Law when negotiating cohesion policy partnership agreements and programmes; also believes that any suspensions of funding, which would affect local and regional authorities not responsible for the breaches of the rule of law by their national governments, should be opposed and the European Commission should identify areas where it can work directly with cities and regions to strengthen the rule of law in Europe so that final beneficiaries of the funds are not unfairly affected;

Amendment 159 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls for the rules for re-orienting funds should be made more flexible, for instance by considering the creation of a dedicated axis in order for local and regional authorities to address emerging priorities; stresses that this will not erode the multi-annual orientation of the policy but will help best adapt to the fast- changing nature of our times;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the outcomes of the 2014- 2020 programming period prove the indispensable role of cohesion policy as the only regional development instrument that is geared to local needs and addressing negative effects of climate change; whereas because of cohesion policy’s positive local impact, no other EU investment policy could replace it;

Amendment 160 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of a tTechnical aAssistance ~~programme specifically designed for~~and Advisory Programme (TAAP) targeting smaller municipalities and cross-border and rural areas ~~that fac~~for facing the new challenges such as ~~the~~ green transition and climate change; ~~believes that the support should be~~underlines that TAAP should complement existing technical and financial advisory instruments including those developed in collaboration between the EIB and the Commission, including on energy efficiency; calls for targeted support in the form of 100 % EU co- financing for technical, financial and administrative capacity- building, project design and preparation, identifying and building project pipeline as well as strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments)~~, while~~ for municipalities; underlines that the allocation criteria should ~~include the~~be a cross-point between number of inhabitants and ~~the needs and challenges of these areas~~actual needs; believes that the new initiative should provide a single point of contact for municipalities to access support modalities as part of the URBIS platform;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of a technical assistance programme specifically designed for smaller municipalities and cross-border and rural areas, as well as outermost regions, overseas territories and island regions that face new challenges such as the green transition and climate change; recalls that the outermost regions and island territories are at high risk of major natural disasters, and are often impacted by high seismic or volcanic intensity, cyclones, forest fires, storms, floods, droughts, among others; believes that the support should be in the form 100 % EU financing for administrative capacity-building, project design and strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments), while the allocation criteria should include the number of inhabitants and the needs and challenges of these areas;

Amendment 162 #

Maria Angela DANZÌ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of a technical assistance programme specifically designed for areas that in previous years have had difficulties with absorbing earmarked funds, smaller municipalities and cross-border and rural areas that face new challenges such as the green transition and climate change; believes that the support should be in the form 100 % EU financing for administrative capacity- building, including support for the recruitment of professionals to help administrations with managing eligible projects, project design and strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments), while the allocation criteria should include the number of inhabitants and the needs and challenges of these areas;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of a technical assistance programme specifically designed for smaller municipalities and cross-border and rural areas that face new challenges ~~such as the green transition and climate change~~; believes that the support should be in the form 100 % EU financing for administrative capacity- building, project design and strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments), while the allocation criteria should include the number of inhabitants and the needs and challenges of these areas;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of a technical assistance programme specifically designed for smaller municipalities and cross-border, remote and rural areas that face new challenges such as the green transition and climate change; believes that the support should be in the form of 100 % EU financing for administrative capacity- building, project design and strategic planning capabilities (including planning instruments), while the allocation criteria should include the number of inhabitants and the needs and challenges of these areas;

Amendment 165 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)

In this regard, calls for an amount of the cohesion policy funds to be earmarked to develop territorial approaches in rural areas or in urban-rural territorial approaches through ITI, CLLD or other mechanism for non-agricultural rural development to complement actions supported under the LEADER approach under the CAP; this will also be a fundamental way to address the geography of discontent;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Identifies local and national authorities’ difficulties recruiting a qualified workforce to implement, manage and audit cohesion funds as one of the reasons for delays in implementation of those funds; calls on Member States to launch efforts to train and recruit specialised staff to optimise the implementation, management and auditing of European funds in the future in order to make those funds as effective and efficient as possible; reaffirms that the lack of a specialised workforce in local and national authorities results in bureaucratic delays that have an impact on the implementation of funded projects.

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for a better access to funding to enable investments in the local energy transition, including energy efficiency, decentralised distribution of energy and a strong focus on renewable energy and sustainable circular economy; furthermore, calls to strengthen the polluter-pays principle and promote decarbonisation both in mobility infrastructure and economy to contribute to the EU Green Deal and Fitfor55 Package;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for a chapter on economic, social and territorial cohesion to be included in the European Semester’s country-specific recommendations in future;

Amendment 169 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Believes that cities and urban authorities must have direct access to EU funding; reiterates the importance of safeguards that would avoid an unfair penalization of the regional and local authorities situated in countries that may be subject to the activation of the Rule of Law mechanism; calls in the same time for a regional budget with direct access for regions;

Amendment 17 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the outcomes of the 2014- 2020 programming period prove the indispensable role of cohesion policy as the only ~~regional~~ development instrument that is geared to regional and local needs; whereas because of cohesion policy’s positive regional and local impact, no other EU investment policy could replace it;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12 %; calls on the Member States to ensure that small urban authorities are also able to access the 12 % of ERDF funds at national level dedicated to financing sustainable and integrated urban development projects; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local authorities and for their benefit; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge on climate change which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for cohesion policy to include ~~a stronger urban~~both urban and rural dimensions through designated investments in urban and rural areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments; calls ~~for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12 %~~to earmark funding for rural areas and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps in the same way as 8 % of the cohesion policy funds are earmarked for the development of urban areas; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local authorities and for their benefit; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge on climate change which they can use for urban and rural planning and urban and rural management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial ~~investment~~development tools have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments in order to address the demographic challenge, the development trap and the urban-rural divide; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12 %; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local authorities and for their benefit; underlines in this context that technical, financial and administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge, especially on climate change, which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 173 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension~~a stronger urban dimension to be included within the cohesion policy through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased ~~from 8 % to 12 %; call~~; asks management authorities for this funding to be co-programmed with local and regional authorities and for serving to their benefit of the local communities and the region; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local, regional authorities acquire technical knowledge on climate change which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without ~~significant~~ risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 174 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and sustainable investments; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be increased from 8 % to 12 %; calls for this funding to be co-programmed with local authorities and for their benefit; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and local authorities acquire technical knowledge on climate change which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimension through designated investments in urban areas as well as stronger links between urban and rural projects and investments; calls for the proportion of national ERDF allocations for urban development to be ~~increased from 8 % to 12~~maintained at least at 8 %; calls for this funding to be co- programmed with local a~~uthorities and for their benefit~~nd regional authorities ; underlines in this context that administrative capacity is essential for ensuring that managing bodies and ~~local~~ authorities acquire technical knowledge on climate change which they can use for urban planning and urban management; is convinced that this will lead to better design and evaluation of project proposals, more effective allocation of resources and satisfactory budgetary implementation without significant risk of decommitments; acknowledges that integrated territorial investments have a fundamental role in quality implementation and absorption of resources;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Considers TA2030 to be a real and proper instrument that ensures the EU’s cohesion through the management of each of its regions and their particularities; calls on the EC to consider modifying the role of the Territorial Agenda beyond that of a territorial management guide; calls on the Member States to develop their territorial agendas in line with the TA2030 as a basis for programming their territorial strategies, taking into account the specificities of each of its regions and serving as an incentive, and in order to stimulate the decision-making process and the design of territorial and urban policies;

Amendment 177 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to promote earmarked funding for TA2030 programmes in rural areas and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps in the same way as 8% of the cohesion policy funds are earmarked for the development of programmes under the Urban Agenda; these funds shall be predominantly used via integrated territorial development tools; recalls the importance of strong rural-urban linkages as well as a particular support of women in rural areas;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. calls for the establishment of a genuine structural policy for rural areas that meets the respective challenges in terms of its thematic objectives; points out that the distribution of funding between urban and rural areas ("EU Cohesion Policy in non-urban areas", Study requested by the REGI committee, PE 652.210 - September 2020) by no means meets the objective of Art. 174 TFEU; believes that funding should benefit both urban and rural areas in a balanced way;

Amendment 179 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Recalls that the European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) should be linked to the cohesion policy framework, and be associated again with the Common Provisions Regulation, which is needed to fully develop rural regions;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the outcomes of the 2014- 2020 programming period prove the indispensable role of cohesion policy as the ~~only~~main regional development instrument that is geared to local needs; whereas because of cohesion policy’s positive local impact, no other EU investment policy could replace it;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Calls for conventional macro- economic indicators and the GDP to be complemented with new indicators (such as the EU Social Progress Index and the Climate Change Vulnerability Index) in order to address the new European priorities such as the European Green Deal or the European Pillar of Social Rights and to better reflect the ecological and digital transitions and the wellbeing of people; calls for an impact assessment and a territorial dimension to be considered to allocate cohesion budget in order to take into account the diverse economic, social and territorial situation in the different Member States;

Amendment 181 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls for~~Is of the opinion that the use of cohesion decommitments for ~~thematic concentration on local infrastructure and for~~ reserve margins within cohesion policy ~~that will~~would help, inter alia, to absorb future inflationary hikes or supply chain shocks; believes that th~~e mechanism~~is use should operate on a rolling basis based on necessity and following the multiannual and annual decommitment cycles;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the reduction of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for more flexibility to cater for local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;deleted

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for ~~the reduction~~at least 40% of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for more flexibility to cater for local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure from the ERDF to be allocated to the Policy Objective 2; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the ~~reduc~~continuation of thematic concentration ~~requirements in order to allow for more flexibility to cater for local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in~~ in support of the overarching objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion as laid down in article 174 TFEU and in line withe EU~~’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate~~ common objectives; is convinced that the policy objective of a socially balanced green transition needs to be reinforced even beyond 2027; calls for stronger partnership with regions and cities in order to support them to improve operational mechanisms in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 185 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for ~~the reduction of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for more flexibility~~flexibility at programme level in order to allow for more specific and targeted measures and a differentiated and territorial approach to cater for local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that ~~thematic concentrations~~flexibility should be ~~adap~~granted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for ~~the reduction~~a review of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for more flexibility to cater for regional and local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentration~~s should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closur~~ remains a corner stone to achieve the transition towards a more competitive and smarter Europe, as well as a net zero carbon economy and resilient Europe; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 187 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for ~~the reduction of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for~~ more flexibility to cater for local needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations, while maintaining a high level of investment in a greener, smarter and more social Europe, should be adapted to the way regions and cities operate in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for ~~the reduction of thematic concentration requirements in order to allow for~~ more flexibility to cater for local and regional needs, following the principle of place- based policy in the EU’s territorial investments; underscores that thematic concentrations should ~~be adapted to the way regions and cities ope~~not only be in line with EU policies, but also embratce ~~in practical term~~the real needs of local authorities and the regions, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure; is certain that the key principle should be a tailor-made investment approach geared to specific needs on the ground;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. urges to maintain a dedicated policy objective towards tackling social inequalities as regional convergence has slowed down and new drivers of inequalities have appeared recently as well as new thematic objectives, notably on industrial transition (to help the regions negatively impacted by the indispensable transition towards climate- neutrality) and disaster prevention and management (to help regions affected by the growing climate change consequences and disasters)

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas in the 2014-2020 programming period, cohesion policy, as the EU’s main investment policy, has effectively supported its Treaty-based objective of achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion across the EU; whereas, at the same time, it has been an essential investment pillar of the Europe 2020 Strategy, by contributing to its goal of achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

Amendment 190 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls the Commission to introduce strict criteria in the forthcoming cohesion policy post-2027 legal framework that aim to improve the application of the “do no harm” principle;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for initial allocations and co- financing rates to be assessed on the basis of NUTS 3 (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising ; underlines that such a shift should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas; stresses that this is necessary in order not to stall the development trajectory of metropolitan areas that were previously supported more intensively by cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to guarantee high co-financing rates for the outermost regions, namely at least 85%, and, in specific cases, 100% financing; recalls that, as recognised by the Treaties, these territories face particular constraints and an economic and social situation aggravated by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, or their economic dependence on a few products;

Amendment 192 #

Irène TOLLERET, Stéphane BIJOUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for initial allocations and co- financing rates to be assessed on the basis of NUTS 3 (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising ; underlines that such a shift should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas; stresses that this is necessary in order not to stall the development trajectory of metropolitan areas that were previously supported more intensively by cohesion policyto address intraregional disparities by paying more attention to the diversity of territories in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising;

Amendment 193 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls ~~for~~on the Commission to assess the initial allocations and co- financing rates to be assessed on the basis of NUTS 3 (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising ; underlines that ~~such a shif~~the assessment should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas;, s~~tresses that this is necessary in order not to stall the development trajectory of metropolitan areas that were previously supported more intensively by cohesion policy~~uch as metropolitan areas, in the case of such an approach;

Amendment 194 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for initial allocations and co- financing rates to be assessed on the basis of NUTS 3 (nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) in order for funding to be directed to where it is most needed and to avoid pockets of underdevelopment from arising ; underlines that such a shift should take into account possible negative effects on EU financing for larger urban areas; stresses that this is necessary in order not to stall the development trajectory of metropolitan areas that were previously supported more intensively by cohesion policye importance, as highlighted in the 8th EU Cohesion Report, to support regions in a development trap, characterised by long periods of slow or negative growth, with low productivity growth and low levels of job creation;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 196 #

Peter POLLÁK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses that cohesion policy scope of support includes the integration and inclusion of more than 3 million people who are at risk of social exclusion, including support to 600 000 people from marginalised groups such as Roma living in less developed EU regions, in particular; deplores the unwillingness of local governments of certain Member States to effectively use cohesion funds to ensure access to quality services, such as access to water and decent living conditions, to these people; urges Member States to address these most pressing issues that will significantly contribute to reducing regional disparities;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Calls for the modification of the calculation of co-financing rates and the thematic concentration requirements, not only based on the regional GDP but also on criteria relating to exposure to climate change, unemployment and youth unemployment rates, social exclusion, school drop-out rates, on migratory pressure;

Amendment 198 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;deleted

Amendment 199 #

Maria Angela DANZÌ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. CBelieves that simplifying administrative procedures to access cohesion policy funds would help to cut project implementation times and boost opportunities to absorb funds; considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing; calls, in addition, for direct support for staff training and the implementation of monitoring and assessment systems;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 2018 on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2018)0373),

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas the implications of climate change can have the biggest impact on all European regions, bringing more drastic changes to the life of people and livelihood of regions especially in less developed regions, mainly located in the southern and eastern parts of Europe; whereas climate change thus is the biggest external threat to Europe’s cohesion in the future;

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, ~~the focus should be on a smaller number of~~local and regional authorities combine projects with higher budget, with common benefit ~~projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing~~and small scale projects to bring cohesion policy closer to EU citizens; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing; highlights the importance to strengthen the bottom-up approach to territorial development which is a vehicle for social innovation and capacity building, empowering citizens to take ownership of the development of their territories through the design and implementation of strategies and projects;

Amendment 201 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for the combination of smaller regional financial instruments with larger regional platforms to enhance efficiencies and policy impact; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects in urban as well as in rural areas, the focus shcould be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; ~~calls~~giving SMEs to the possible extent the opportunity to participate in the projects calls on the Commission for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Considers that for the allocation of funds for loca~~calls for guidance and planning support to be enhanced for local, community and small projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget projects; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposingo avoid decommitments and repurposing and to increase visibility and ownership; calls for stronger partnership with regions and cities in order to support them to improve operational mechanisms in practical terms, from programming and reprogramming to implementation and closure;

Amendment 204 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that for the allocation of funds for local projects, the focus should be on a smaller number of higher budget, common benefit ~~projects, instead of scattering the limited resources across a high number of low budget~~ projects; calls for guidance and planning support to avoid decommitments and repurposing;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Stresses that disproportionate burdens, such as the inherent structural disadvantages faced by all border regions should be compensated with a separate regime for regional aid designed specifically for border regions; demands that 0,26% of the EU’s cohesion policy budget shall be reserved exclusively for the development of border regions at the beginning of every new programming period, starting with the period 2028-2034 (=“Borderland Billion”); Suggests that the “Borderland Billion” is to be entrusted directly to the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs), who are to be tasked with its independent management and distribution among projects;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Emphasize the importance of small-scale and cross-border projects in bringing people together and in that way opening new potentials for sustainable local development and cross-border cooperation;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10 b. Calls for a better access to funding for cross-border regions to enable investments in the local energy transition, including energy efficiency, decentralised distribution of energy and a strong focus on renewable energy and sustainable circular economy;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10 c. Believes that future funding should be even more tailor-made and holistic; demands that local and regional authorities as well as citizens and NGOs shall be more included in the decision making and funding process to ensure that real needs are addressed properly; notes the potential that exists at local level could be better mobilised and investments in regional development could be more efficient by strengthening and facilitating citizens participation and community-led local development (CLLD) and similar bottom-up tools; takes the view that CLLD shall be mandatory for Member States to integrate in their programmes;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for the creation of local cohesion boards in the managing authorities and monitoring committees, which should have decision-making powers, including on co-programming and co-reprogramming with local authorities; reiterates that these boards should include representatives of urban and rural administrations, including mayors;deleted

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas cohesion policy is one of the elements that binds the EU together and reducing its budget allocations and/or renationalising it could lead to the gradual disintegration of the EU and fuel anti-EU sentiment across the Union;

Amendment 210 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for the creation of local cohesion boards in the managing authorities and monitoring committees, which should have decision-making powers, including on co-programming and co-reprogramming with local authorities, but also be able to assess, objectively and on an ongoing basis, the effectiveness of fund management by the managing authorities, and thus contribute to the efficient implementation of cohesion policy at local level; reiterates that these boards should include representatives of urban and rural administrations, including mayors;

Amendment 212 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for the creation of local cohesion boards in the managing authorities and monitoring committees, which should have decision-making powers, including on co-programming and co-reprogramming with local authoritiespossibility to create regional and local cohesion boards with decision-making powers in those Member States where managing authorities and monitoring committees exist and operate only at the national level; reiterates that these boards should include representatives of urban and rural administrations, in~~cluding mayors~~ order to respect multi-level governance;

Amendment 213 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for the creation of local and regional cohesion boards in the managing authorities and monitoring committees, ~~which should have decision-making powers, including~~including the representatives of on co- programming and co-reprogramming with local authorities; reiterates that these boards should include representatives of urban and rural administrations~~, including mayors~~ responsible for co-programming and co- reprogramming;

Amendment 214 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls for further involvement of Commission initiatives such as the EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy in the process of designing and implementing the next generation of cohesion policy rules; believes that city networks play an indispensable role in bridging the gap between policy-making and implementation on the ground; acknowledges that policy and implementation support, geared to mayors and local authorities, generates significantly better outcomes in the context of policy implementation;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to address the shortcomings identified in the management of the cohesion funds by the managing authorities, while, at the same time, simplifying the use of technical assistance funds, in order to improve the administrative and management capacities of the competent entities;

Amendment 216 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that promoting an increased sense of local ownership in the long term, the durability of EU projects and higher co-financing leverage can be achieved through ~~more fiscal decentralisation towards muni~~the involvement of regional and local authorities in preparation and implementation of projects and by improving the financipal resources of these authorities ; acknowledges that such a path improves ~~municipal~~the borrowing capacity of regions and municipalities linked to financial instruments provided by the EU budget; underlines that regional and local budgets need more fiscal space to compensate for inflation shocks and crises;

Amendment 217 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that promoting an increased sense of local ownership in the long term, the durability of EU projects and higher co-financing leverage can be achieved through more ~~fiscal decentralisation towards municipaliti~~active participation of urban and rural administrations, including mayors in ESIF monitoring committees; acknowledges that such a path improves municipal borrowing capacity linked to financial instruments provided by the EU budget; underlines that local budgets need more fiscal space to compensate for inflation shocks and crises;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that promoting an increased sense of local and regional ownership in the long term, the durability of EU projects and higher co-financing leverage can be achieved through ~~more fiscal decentralisation towards municipalitie~~budgetary involvement of local authorities and regions; acknowledges that such a path improves regional and municipal borrowing capacity linked to financial instruments provided by the EU budget; ~~underlines that local budgets need more fiscal space to compensate for inflation shocks and crises;~~

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Underlines the particular importance of youth mainstreaming in cohesion policy;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. Whereas it is at territorial level, where the challenges facing European regions are identified and managed;

Amendment 220 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Recalls the importance of a stronger gender mainstreaming in cohesion policy and highlights the specific role of women, in particular in remote areas, as they play a major role in civil society and sustainable economic growth and at the same time face difficulties in accessing the labour market, as well as equal pay, public services such as health and childcare; emphasizes the role of young women in particular in rural areas and the tendency of their precarious role in rural societies;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. CStresses that differences exist between Member States when it comes to the competences of authorities; calls for paths for the decentralisation of cohesion policy management to be explored in Member States where managing authorities only exist and operate on national level in order to bring management closer to the regional and local level; stresses that ~~preparatory work should ensure th~~adequate ad~~equat~~ministrative capacity and institutional backing ~~is available~~must be the condition for this in order to ensure effectiveness, to reduce the number of irregularities a~~s well as no~~nd to avoid additional administrative burden ~~for contractors and for final beneficiaries~~;

Amendment 222 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Calls for paths for the decentralisation of cohesion policy management to be explored in order to bring management closer to the local level; s~~Stresses that preparatory work should ensure that adequate capacity and institutional backing is available in order to ensure effectiveness of the policy, reduce the number of irregularities as well as no additional administrative burden for contractors and for final beneficiaries;

Amendment 223 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for paths for the ~~decentralisation~~strengthening of cohesion policy management ~~to be explored~~ in order to bring management closer to the local level; stresses that preparatory work should ensure that adequate capacity and institutional backing is available in order to ensure effectiveness, reduce the number of irregularities and frauds, as well as no additional administrative burden for contractors and for final beneficiaries;

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. calls for a promotion of territorial development strategies (CLLD/ITI), where necessary through mandatory use, in order to involve the levels of governance closest to citizens in the planning, consultation, implementation and management of the funds;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Encourages ~~multi-city~~synergies between projects and collaboration agreements in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, climate change and the green transition; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of investments, instead of fragmentation and lack of synergies; highlights the added value of territorial cooperation in general and cross-border cooperation in particular;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Encourages multi-city projects and collaboration agreements in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, innovation, climate change ~~and the green~~mitigation/adaptation as well as green and digital transition; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of investments, instead of fragmentation and lack of synergies;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Encourages multi-city projects and collaboration agreements in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, climate change and the green and digital transition; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of sustainable investments, instead of fragmentation and lack of synergies;

Amendment 228 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Encourages multi-city projects and collaboration agreements in order to harness pooled capacities and economies of scale in EU investments in infrastructure, climate change and the green~~Calls for the increase of the budget for European Territorial Cooperation programmes, which provide a unique framework for interregional, cross- border, and transination~~; believes that this process should lead to a greater sense of ownership of projects and the consolidation of invest~~al cooperation and help address common challenges, fostering partnerships and promoting economic developments, ~~instead of fragmentation and lack of synergies~~social cohesion and environmental sustainability;

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Stresses the importance of more sustainable mobility solutions throughout the EU territories, including the TEN-T policy; calls on the Commission to promote smart and green mobility; is of the position that smart and sustainable mobility solutions should be prioritized for EU funding;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas cohesion policy investments across the EU have resulted in unparalleled positive impacts on regions, cities, rural, border and remote areas; whereas directly or indirectly, every EU Member State has experienced the positive effects of financing through the EU budget;

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14 b. Calls on the Commission to exclude the national co-financing of the investments funded by the ERDF, JTF, ESF+, INTERREG that do not deviate from the respect of the Paris Agreement’s objectives from the assessment of the Member States’ fiscal position in the context of the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14 c. Calls for the discontinuation of the macro-economic conditionality in the new funding period since the link between the EU economic governance framework and cohesion policy must not be based on a punitive approach holding ESI Funds hostage to national decisions;

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for the further involvement of the EIB Group in cohesion policy investments, especially in less developed regions, through the provision of support to sustainable cities, sustainable energy and local innovation projects, including through further use of financial instruments and support for private sector investment; calls for the expansion of the local project assistance and financial instruments that complement and leverage EU grants; acknowledges that in many Member States EIB financing, such as the Structural Programme Loans, contributes significantly to the national co-financing obligations under cohesion policy, which in turn facilitates and accelerates the implementation of the programmes;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for the further involvement of the EIB Group in cohesion policy investments, especially in less developed regions through the provision of support to sustainable cities, sustainable energy, circular economy, green jobs and local innovation projects; calls for the expansion of the local project assistance and financial instruments that complement and leverage EU grants;

Amendment 234 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for the further involvement of the EIB Group in cohesion policy investments, especially in less developed regions through the provision of support to sustainable cities, sustainable energy ~~and loc~~, local and regional innovation projects; calls for the expansion of the local and regional project assistance and financial instruments that complement and leverage EU grants;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Calls for more greener spending in post-2027 cohesion policy which is geared towards sustainable investment and for more items of harmful spending to be excluded from support from the outset compared to previous periods, such as landfills, waste incinerators, airports, etc.; calls on the Commission to promote further biodiversity and climate-related spending, a wider exclusion list to strengthen the “do no harm” principle and fully phase out fossil fuels, the gender dimension in cohesion policy and EU- wide citizen participation;

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15 b. Reiterates the need to urgently strengthen EU policy regarding mitigation and adaptation to climate change, also in the light of the growing trends of extreme weather events occurred in these last years and months in the EU; highlights, in this context, the need to step up ambition and quantity of the present and future pilot projects within the objective “Greener Europe” and its first priority “Healthier environment”, taking into account that the signatories of the Territorial Agenda have already set out, inter alia, the development of new crisis management tools to increase places' safety and resilience, the respect the natural limits of Europe's common livelihoods and the increase in the resilience of all places impacted by climate change, and the need for strengthening awareness and empowering local and regional communities to protect, rehabilitate, utilise and reutilise their (built) environments;

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15 c. Highlights the relevance of the territorial tools in terms of increased and inclusive participation from civil society and local governments; calls on the Commission to explore new ways to raise further awareness on their rationale and to substantially increase the use of ITI and CLLDs, also by potentially earmarking a mandatory percentage to be used in the post-27 cohesion policy framework;

Amendment 238 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)

15 d. Supports the creation of new macro-regional strategies that can strengthen partnerships and help to address common challenges, in order to promote sustainable economic development, social cohesion and environmental protection;

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Insists on a critical review of Commission’s ad hoc initiatives and the thorough screening of new initiatives regarding quality and quantity; demands that this process is managed jointly and in partnership, with guaranteed representation of the local level, both of cities and rural areas; calls for limiting the number of Commission ad hoc initiatives, some of which prove to be of less use to the local level and might undermine the effectiveness overall cohesion appropriations planned in advance by scattering them; insists that every new Commission initiative must be accompanied by a corresponding budgetary top-up;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas cohesion policy remains and ought to remain the main investment policy for the EU’s regions and cities and has not been intended to consistently serve as a first choice for financial assistance to face unforeseen events that shake our socio-economy;

Amendment 240 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Insists on a critical review of Commission’s ad hoc initiatives in this field and the thorough screening of new initiatives by the EP; demands that this process is managed jointly and in partnership, with guaranteed representation of the local level, both of cities and rural areas, as well as of regions; calls for limiting the number of Commission ad hoc initiatives, some of which prove to be of less use to the local and regional level and might undermine the effectiveness of the overall cohesion appropriations planned in advance by scattering them; insists that every new Commission initiative must be accompanied by a corresponding budgetary top-up;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Insists on a critical review of Commission’s ad hoc initiatives and the thorough screening of new initiatives; demands that this process is managed jointly and in partnership, with guaranteed representation of the local level, both of cities and rural areas~~; calls for limiting the number of Commission ad hoc initi~~, and civil society organisativeons, ~~some of which prove to be of less use to the local level and might~~in order not to undermine the effectiveness of overall cohesion appropriations planned in advance ~~by scattering them~~; insists that every new Commission initiative must be accompanied by a corresponding budgetary top-up;

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. A rigorous evaluation of the management of the Structural and Investment Funds in each Member State and in each of the beneficiary regions and municipalities is essential; the level of implementation of the funds allocated to each of them, as well as the transformative nature and the impact on the economy and employment in the area, must be assessed to verify that the funds are being properly managed and invested as intended; the non-implementation of funds by some governments results in increasing inequalities between territories and people; the institutions have to be demanding in their evaluations, including in order to avoid repeating mistakes in successive programmes, and always aim for the ultimate goal of full implementation and the greatest impact on economic growth and employment generation;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. points out that, enlargement perspectives for several neighbour countries within the next 10 to 20 years increase the relevance of cross-border cooperation and will likely have repercussions on the level of cohesion with the Union; calls, therefore, on the Commission to carry out a detailed assessment before proposing new regulation for the post-2027 cohesion policy in order to be able to estimate the additional needs of cross-border cooperation and to tackle possible unfavourable consequence caused by a "statistical effect";

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure and strengthen further, in the new funding period, environmental protection requirements, resource efficiency, better water and waste management, energy efficiency first principle, climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, disaster resilience, and risk prevention and management in the preparation and implementation of Partnership Agreements and programmes;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Highlights the importance of upholding the Partnership Principle in all programming, implementation and monitoring of EU cohesion policy and to set up a strong cooperation between regional and local authorities, NGOs and stakeholders, including environmental NGOs; stresses that this process should take into account the gender perspective as well;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16 c. Calls for a mandatory participation of Member States in the work of the European Public Prosecutor Office in order to enhance the fight against corruption and misuse of EU funds;

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)

16 d. Calls on the Commission and Member States to make further efforts of utilizing the cohesion policy in order to support actions promoting effective interventions that contribute to the realisation of children’s rights;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 e (new)

16 e. Calls for further strengthening the communication and visibility of the programmes and EU funded projects across the Member States, through defining its objectives, target audiences, communication channels, social media outreach, planned budget and relevant indicators for monitoring and evaluation;

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 f (new)

16 f. Calls on the Council to unblock and start its work on the European Cross- border Mechanism file;

Amendment 25 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas it is of utmost importance to formulate any future cohesion policy with a strategic impetus that is being followed during the whole funding period, which should however be reassessed and adjusted in the midterm of the funding period;

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls for the creation of a mechanism for the early detection of red tape and actions in breach of or not effectively applying the multi-level governance principle; ~~calls for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; is convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right to follow-up, perform checks and make corrective~~ highlights that simplification should be one of the key drivers of the future co~~mmendations~~hesion policy;

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls for the creation of a dedicated mechanism for the early detection of red tape and actions in breach of or not effectively applying the multi-level governance principle; calls for the inclusion of the pPartnership pPrinciple in the European Semester; is convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right to follow-up, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;

Amendment 252 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls ~~for~~on the ~~creation of a mechanism for the early detection of red tape and actions in breach of or not~~Commission, Member States, regions and local authorities to rigorously and effectively apply~~ing~~ the multi- level governance principle; ~~call~~asks for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; icalls con~~vinced that~~ the Commission and the ECA ~~should have the right to~~to scrupulously conduct follow-ups, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;

Amendment 253 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all Member States have an effective mechanism for reporting irregularities, in line with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1970; recommends that irregularities are only classed as closed on the Irregularity Management System (IMS) once the missing amounts are also recovered at national level, and not only after the irregular sums are returned to the Commission; recommends that Member States ensure data in the official report of irregularities and fraud in the IMS is cross-checked with the data for the approved projects and with the data of ongoing criminal proceedings; calls on the Commission to improve coordination of the powers of OLAF and the EPPO to investigate irregularities relating to cohesion funds;

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Welcomes the European Commission's decision to extend the validity of the Code of Conduct for Partnerships under the European Structural and Investment Funds (Delegated Regulation No 240/2014); believes that these guidelines contribute significantly to better involvement of local authorities, but should be revised in the future to improve effectiveness and ensure even greater involvement of partners to promote place-based actions;

Amendment 255 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. recalls the importance of a stronger gender mainstreaming in cohesion policy and highlights the specific role of women, as they play a major role in society and sustainable economic development and at the same time face difficulties in accessing the labour market, as well as equal pay, public services such as health and childcare; also highlights the particular importance of youth mainstreaming in cohesion policy

Amendment 256 #

Tom BERENDSEN, François-Xavier BELLAMY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Acknowledge the need to simplify the procedures linked to the use of cohesion policy funds, not only to increase their impact in all European regions, but also to strengthen the link between Europe and its citizens; calls, in this view, for a renewed approach to risk management, including the principle of "right to error", the extension of the single audit principle and the non-cost- related funding model;

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Calls on the European Commission to provide island regions and overseas countries and territories all the necessary aid, including by way of using cohesion policy, in order to enhance their self-sufficiency and economic development, while taking into account their specific environmental and geographical characteristics, as well as social and economic situation;

Amendment 258 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Calls for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; is convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right to follow-up, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;

Amendment 259 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17 b. Stresses that the future cohesion policy must continue to pay attention to the progress made in achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion in regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural and demographic handicaps, such as the outermost regions, sparsely populated areas, islands, mountainous areas and cross-border regions;

Amendment 26 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas the multi-priority investment approach of cohesion policy, combined with its shared management have contributed to the EU’s priorities: SME support, research and innovation, digitalisation, farming, urban infrastructure, tourism, large transport infrastructure, culture and education, healthcare, cross-border projects, the energy transition, energy efficiency, climate and environment; whereas EU cohesion investments build the EU in times of peace and rebuild it in times of crisis;

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17 c. Underlines the importance of Article 349 TFEU in all Union policies with the aim to achieve the objectives set out therein; recalls the vital role played by cohesion policy in the outermost regions; underlines the importance of designing tailor-made programmes and measures for these regions and stresses the need to maintain the measures specifically designed for them, as the majority of the outermost regions are still among the less developed regions; reaffirms, in this context, the importance of dynamic regional cooperation in order to unleash the potential of the outermost regions;

Amendment 261 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)

17 d. Draws attention to the difficult situation of regions sharing a border with Russia and Belarus after the suspension of cooperation following the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine; calls on the Commission to closely work with the affected Members States to find sustainable solutions in order to address the social and economic challenges in those regions;

Amendment 262 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)

17 e. Recognises the importance to give special attention to the regions affected by the industrial transition; in this sense, welcomes the efforts by the Commission to address this issue with the Just Transition Fund, the first pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism in the context of the European Green Deal aiming at achieving the EU climate-neutrality by 2050;

Amendment 263 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 f (new)

17 f. Underlines the importance of good governance at all levels in the management of cohesion policy; reminds that public money coming from taxpayers must not be misused; asks the Commission and the Member States to use and enhance existing mechanisms to detect and fight fraud and corruption;

Amendment 264 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 g (new)

17 g. Invites the Commission and the Member States to do the outmost to ensure that all regions in the EU have access to high-speed broadband so that all regions are placed on an even footing to achieve the digital transition;

Amendment 265 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 h (new)

17 h. Stresses the need to encourage the involvement of the private sector for investments in sustainable development; underlines in this regards the role SMEs can play for innovations; calls on the Member States and the Commission to propose measures to enhance the uptake of ready-for-market innovations by SMEs;

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Calls for the use of digital technology and solutions to simplify implementation, monitoring and reporting, hence contributing to more efficient administration and less physical documentation.

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria must prevent environmentally harmful measures, as box-ticking of existing EU legislation is not sufficient to ensure environmental protection;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas the Territorial Agenda is the guiding instrument for the European Union’s territorial policy

Amendment 29 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

A d. whereas cohesion policy can effectively support an emergency response to asymmetric shocks such as the refugee crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the negative economic and social impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic; whereas this emergency help should however not undermine or threaten the strategic approach of the whole funding period;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to the updated proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of XX December 2023 on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2023)XXXX) [exact title to be specified after publication],

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

A d. whereas the outcomes of the thousands of local projects confirm the indispensable role of regional investment through cohesion policy and consolidate its role and visibility in the multiannual financial framework;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

A d. Whereas the European Urban Agenda, through the Leipzig Charter, supports the objectives of the Territorial Agenda 2030;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)

A e. whereas, despite not being a crisis instrument, cohesion policy was a key element of the EU’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the refugee and energy crises caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; whereas cohesion policy is a long-term investment and should not become a source of emergency funding to address every new challenge;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)

A e. whereas brain drain disproportionately affects less developed regions and if left unaddressed, it will have long-term and permanent effects on the future of the European Union;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A f (new)

A f. whereas the goal of a carbon- neutral Europe by 2050 at the latest should be coupled with the goal of a fair and just transition;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A g (new)

A g. whereas cohesion policy funding should comply with the Charter of Fundamental rights, the principles of Rule of Law, and the European code of conduct on partnership;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A h (new)

A h. whereas the pandemic and the current geopolitical tensions have confirmed the need to work towards a renewed Economic Governance Framework, including the Stability and Growth Pact, and to introduce a golden rule for cohesion policy investments that do not deviate from the respect of the Paris Agreement’s objectives, including the co-funding of the Structural and Investment Funds;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas despite the regulatory improvements introduced in the 2014-2020 programming period and the improvements in the 2021-2027 regulatory framework, a number of challenges still remain;

Amendment 38 #

Tom BERENDSEN, François-Xavier BELLAMY

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas alongside CRII+, CARE and SAFE, cohesion policy acted as a bulwark against the series of crises faced by the EU during the programming period – the COVID-19 pandemic, preserving jobs and helping affected businesses, the war in Ukraine, the mass influx of refugees, the energy crisis, inflation and the considerable drop in purchasing power;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the outermost regions (ORs) and island territories with the status of overseas countries and territories (OCTs) face a significant number of structural constraints and are less developed than the continental regions of their Member States; whereas a stable and predictable regulatory environment is particularly important for the efficient management of the cohesion funds in these regions;

Amendment 4 #

Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Gabriel MATO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)

– having regard to the UN IPCC report on Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas the efficient management of the cohesion funds is crucial to achieving regional development objectives and meeting local needs, and that delays, particularly in some outermost regions, have been observed in the implementation of the 2014-2020 funds, requiring further attention on the efficiency of their management; whereas some regions have not spent nearly 50% of their budget ;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the delayed adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the multitude of crises as well as the introduction of the Next Generation European Union instruments hindered the speedy implementation of cohesion policy across the EU, posed programming and delivery challenges and introduced uncertainty in the context of initially planned regional EU investments;

Amendment 42 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the last stage of implementing and closing the MFF 2014- 2020 happened at a more challenging time for local and national administrations and coincided with the implementation of a large amount of funding from the Union in connection with a number of financial instruments, specifically the recovery and resilience plans and the MFF 2021-2027;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the urbanisation and the demographic changes between regions have a negative effect especially on rural areas, sparsely populated areas and less developed regions; underlines the effects of Russian war of aggression especially on EU's eastern border areas;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

B b. whereas the additional funding provided in response to the recent crises, including NGEU, has put an additional strain on the administrative systems in the Member States, to the detriment of the implementation pace, but also to the detriment of their control and audit capacities;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the series of crises and implementation of emergency programmes have together hindered the proper implementation of the programme, causing an accumulation of delays in many regions;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas MFF 2014- 2020 implementation rates vary considerably between Member States and between funding programmes;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

B c. whereas demographic ageing in the EU as a whole has led to a shrinking working age population; whereas many EU regions are facing the departure of their young and skilled workers to wealthier areas; whereas rural, peripheral, outermost and industrial transition regions in the EU are particularly affected by this worrying demographic trend;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas in many cases, the Member States implemented the Recovery and Resilience Facility concurrently with cohesion policy, and often without consulting or cooperating with regional authorities, even to take stock of what had been implemented;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas the legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility is Article 175 TFEU and, in this sense, the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and effective coordination with cohesion policy, should have been pursued by the Member States and guaranteed by the European Commission;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)

– having regard to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on global warming of 1,5 °C, its special report on climate change and land, and its special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)

B d. whereas the principles of multi- level governance and partnership need a major overhaul in order to effectively involve the local level in the processes of programming, re-programming and implementation of European funds;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)

B e. whereas the rigidity of cohesion policy's programming, including thematic objectives, thematic concentration, partnership agreements, strategic documents and territorial strategies, hinders flexibility in the context of eventualities that occur during the programming period;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas many Member States failed to fully implement the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and Europe’s regions are often more willing and able to implement such funds;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas in the 2014-2020 period, cohesion policy prove to be too complex to implement for the managing authorities, competent regional bodies and final beneficiaries;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)

B f. whereas European Union pre- accession and enlargement processes require a well-balanced and targeted role of regional development and cohesion policy;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B g (new)

B g. whereas public procurement rules in many Member States, alongside extra layers of national audits and controls, generate burden for managing authorities, beneficiaries and the overall implementation of cohesion policy;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B g (new)

Bg. whereas the system for checking on cohesion funds was mainly designed to detect errors, and does not detect fraud so easily;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B h (new)

8h. whereas the fight against fraud must be based on increased and direct cooperation between the services of the European Commission and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; whereas the absence of clear distinction between error, anomaly and fraud considerably complicates and makes more cumbersome the management and implementation of cohesion policy;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Acknowledges that when it comes to research and innovation, cohesion policy funding has strengthened cooperation between the research community and businesses, helping turn research returns into marketable products or services; notes that according to Commission’s figures, by the end of 2021 more than 61 000 companies cooperated with research institutions and around 30 000 introduced new products to the market thanks to ERDF support; also notes that by the same date, more than 57 000 researchers were working in better facilities;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1 a. Underlines that cohesion policy has also helped bridge the digital divide between regions by supporting the development of ICT infrastructure in less developed regions; welcomes that as a result, by the end of 2021 6.3 million households had been provided with better broadband access, and this figure was expected to reach 11.5 million by the end of 2023, of which 83 % will be in Spain, Italy and Poland;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 c (new)

– having regard to the agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1 b. Points out that cohesion support has also brought tangible benefits to thousands of SMEs; stresses that this has been one of the best performing areas of ERDF support; underlines that this Fund had provided support to more than 2 million businesses by the end of 2021, which created 310 000 jobs; notes that evaluations carried out in Czechia, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria contain examples of SMEs that have become more competitive and innovative, increased their productivity and achieved better access to international markets;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1 c. Underscores that cohesion has also played an essential role in the transition to a low-carbon economy; welcomes also that reducing energy consumption in buildings is a major component of this shift and support from cohesion policy has already borne fruit; welcomes the fact that valuations by the Member States show that measures to improve energy efficiency have been effective across the EU; notes that by the end of 2021, for example, ERDF had helped improve the energy efficiency in 460 000 households;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)

-1 d. Acknowledges that there is evidence that cohesion policy supported investments in several coal regions that were highly relevant for decarbonisation; notes that in Asturias, Spain, interventions focused on employment of youth and women in rural areas, incentivising entrepreneurship and social inclusion also notes that in Bulgaria, in the region of Yugoiztochen, cohesion funds have focused on energy efficiency, the modernisation of SMEs and the promotion of skills development;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)

-1 e. Acknowledges that measures aimed at addressing renewable energy production have increased renewable production capacity in the EU by 3 660 MW by the end of 2021, with a target of 8 800 MW by the end of 2023; notes that positive results in this area are reported, for example, in Estonia and regions of France;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)

-1 f. Underlines that evaluations of interventions in the area of climate change adaptation and risk prevention show a need of cooperation across borders to make measures financed by cohesion policy truly effective; underlines that some countries have already taken joint risk prevention and civil protection measures: there are examples of such cooperation between Italy and France, Czechia and Poland, and Italy and Austria; stresses that in regards to climate change adaptation, thanks to cohesion investments 21.7 million people are now less exposed to flooding;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 g (new)

-1 g. Notes that cohesion support from ERDF and CF has also allowed to increase the number of people benefitting from better water supply (5.1 million people by the end of 2021) and a better management of their municipal waste; notes that most of the targeted beneficiaries (70 %) of the measures to improve drinking water, for example, live in Romania, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria and Czechia; also notes that in France and Belgium, cohesion-funded projects helped boost the circular economy;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)

-1 h. Stresses that energy and transport networks have received significant investments from ERDF and CF; notes that although the impact of this kind of infrastructure projects can only be properly assessed in the longer term, according to evaluations carried out in Poland and Czechia some of the investments in road and rail infrastructures have already resulted in fewer road accidents, reduced travel times and less pollution; notes that in addition, in Member States such as Poland and Bulgaria the natural gas projects financed have contributed to the strategic objective of diversifying their energy supply; welcomes that fact that the Greece- Bulgarian gas interconnector in Bulgaria, supported by the ERDF, started operating in October 2022 and contributes to the EU’s strategic aims of autonomy of energy supply and diversification of sources;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 i (new)

-1 i. Acknowledges that cohesion, especially through the ESF and YEI, has supported successful employment, social inclusion and educational and vocational training measures; stresses that by the end of 2021, 6.4 million people had found a job thanks to measures supported by ESF and YEI, and 8.8 million people had gained a qualification;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 j (new)

-1 j. Underlines that evaluations from Member States such as Italy, Germany, Poland and Ireland showed that people, and especially young people, that had participated in training measures, apprenticeships and traineeships supported by cohesion funds had significantly increased chances of finding jobs; notes that Poland and Ireland achieved good results with projects aimed at the long-term unemployed; also notes that an evaluation of the Youth Employment Initiative 2014-2020 carried out in Hungary found that the programme had contributed significantly to the probability of participants being employed on the short-run, although this impact was declining with time; stresses that another evaluation from Hungary concluded that the labour market integration support schemes financed through the ESF had a positive and substantial impact on gaining employment; notes that an evaluation of the YEI carried out in Sweden found overall positive effects on employment for participants, especially those with a foreign background; stresses that training measures both for pupils and teachers have had a positive impact in early school leaving rates, for example in Germany, Portugal and Spain;

Amendment 69 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 k (new)

-1 k. Notes that ESF helped entrepreneurs launch new businesses and provided training so that companies could better adapt to changes in the market; underlines that the dimension of the ESF programme in Thuringia, Germany, dedicated to strengthening entrepreneurship, supported, among other projects, the Thuringian Center for Start- ups and Entrepreneurship (ThEx); acknowledges that until the end of 2021, the centre had helped approximately 2 900 people start a new business in the region;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)

– having regard to the Commission communication of 30 June 2021 on long- term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas - Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 (COM/2021/345)

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 l (new)

-1 l. Stresses that cohesion policy financial support in for projects in the healthcare sector, mainly through ESF and ERDF investments: by the end of 2021, 59 million people had access to improved healthcare services across the EU; underlines that in Lithuania, for example, cohesion funded projects have managed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and the suicide rate;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 m (new)

-1 m. Welcomes the cohesion policy contribution to territorial cooperation; notes that this specific goal of the ERDF helped fund cross-border transnational, or interregional projects in areas such as research, development and innovation and the environment; underlines that as reported by the Commission, without this specific cohesion support, most of these cooperation projects would not have taken place; stresses that by the end of 2021 more than 33 500 businesses had participated in cross-border transnational, or interregional research projects, and 165 000 people had benefitted from cross- border mobility initiatives;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 n (new)

-1 n. Underlines that the impact evaluation of the Central Europe Interreg OP 2014-2020 showed that by end of 2021, the programme had had positive outcomes in the fields of innovation, low carbon, environment, culture and transport; underlines that 62 452 people were trained and 1 276 new full-time jobs were created; welcomes the fact that the Romania-Serbia Interreg programme also contributed to strengthening the cooperation of both countries in all relevant areas and the Sweden, Denmark and Norway Interreg programme showed positive results in the area of the green economy;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 o (new)

-1 o. Welcomes cohesion policy's response to the latest crises; notes that more than 300 CRII(+) programme amendments were adopted, resulting in the redirection of almost EUR 28 billion of funds to tackle the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; underlines that EUR 8 billion, for example, were redirected to provide business support to the companies most affected by the COVID-19 crisis; also notes that there is evidence that the ERDF business support in Hungary, for example, made possible by these flexibilities had a positive effect in the companies targeted; notes that the Commission’s preliminary evaluation of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under CRII(+) was also mainly positive; underlines that CRII(+) reached their objectives in most Member States, which used these flexibilities to efficiently reallocate remaining resources to fund short-term working arrangements, social inclusion measures, and their healthcare system, depending on their national contexts; stresses that thanks to CRII (+) governments were also able to maintain their level of contracting and expenditure during this difficult period Coronavirus Dashboard, EC, data of August 2023;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 p (new)

-1 p. Notes that REACT-EU support focused on recovery measures driven by future-oriented priorities, such as the green and digital transition: an example of such support is the project Green Change Zealand, that helped 20 SMEs in the region reduce their energy and material consumption through green conversion plans;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 q (new)

-1 q. Notes that cohesion policy has effectively helped to reduce disparities over the years but, as made clear by the 8th Cohesion Report, some disparities still remain, for example in the area of employment, and new ones, such as the regional innovation divide, have now emerged; underlines that another very important challenge is the one of the development traps: while eastern EU regions have been catching up, other regions, especially in southern EU, have stagnated; notes also that demographic change will also affect all of the EU’s regions, but especially rural regions, which are already shrinking; underlines that this will, in turn, exacerbate the urban-rural divide; stresses that the green and digital transition is moving at very different speeds across EU regions;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 r (new)

-1 r. Notes that, as evidenced by the analyses of cohesion policy funds performance, including by the ECA, there is room for improving the effectiveness of cohesion policy interventions for delivering on the EU’s overarching priorities and territorial challenges, such as competitiveness or the greening of the economy; cotes that a broader response involving other EU policies and an effective targeting of funds will be therefore essential to fight the geography of discontent;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 s (new)

-1 s. Acknowledges that the repeated mobilisation of cohesion policy to response to crises and emergencies, however, has raised important questions; notes that as the Court of Auditors has already pointed out, the effects of this constant erosion of cohesion resources on the long-term objectives of the policy need to be carefully analysed; also notes that the administrative effort required for reprogramming might have affected implementation at a key moment in the operational programmes’ lifecycle; points out that the pressure to spend large amounts in a very short period of time has unfortunately contributed to an increase in irregular spending;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 t (new)

-1 t. Stresses that structural funds and instruments are increasing in number and being scattered under different legal and strategic frameworks; notes in particular the creation of the RRF, which pursues cohesion priorities under a different legal framework and delivery model, or the exclusion of the EAFRD from the ESI Funds;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 u (new)

-1 u. Stresses that a creeping erosion of the policy is taking place, with the emergence of thematic funds or initiatives supporting a particular sector or goal which rely on contributions from cohesion policy, such as STEP and ASAP proposals, ReactEU or RePowerEU, while the territorial approach of the policy is diluted;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions,

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 v (new)

-1 v. Stresses that while it is difficult to deny cohesion policy support in the face of an emergency, it is evident that a proper emergency fund is needed and, with regards to cohesion policy funds, clear rules should be established to ensure the structural approach, on the one hand, and the need to face unforeseen events, on the other;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 w (new)

-1 w. Acknowledges that if there is one thing that both advocates and opponents of cohesion policy agree on, it is the need for reform to achieve further simplification; notes that the regulatory framework 2021-2027 already introduced measures to simplify the delivery and management of cohesion policy, but it is clear from stakeholders’ feedback that this drive towards simplification must continue;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 x (new)

-1 x. Acknowledges that the performance framework introduced in the 2014-2020 was an attempt to improve the result orientation of the policy, but it was the object of major criticism; notes that some sources suggested it should be more results-oriented, and not indicator- oriented, in order to focus on addressing the real underlying problems that the policy intends to solve; points out that the Court of Auditors analysis concluded that the new model did not make a noticeable difference to the way EU funding was allocated and disbursed; assumes that some part of those conclusions could be relevant for the implementation of the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 y (new)

-1 y. Underlines that the emergence of budgetary support instruments based on direct management and with a more simple delivery model could lead to a renationalisation of cohesion policy and endanger one of the basic principles of cohesion policy: multi-level governance; notes that there is a feeling of disappointment with the implementation of the RRF at local and regional level; underlines that a performance-based approach won’t work unless the regional and local level have a say on the definition of the targets against which the success of the policy will be measured;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional growth and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; it is therefore necessary to enhance cooperation between the various EU support and funding programmes by bolstering the possibility of financing common projects, fostering synergies, sharing management platforms and centralising information and management, with cohesion policy always forming the backbone and primary focus of such management, given its history and the accomplishments of successive programmes; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional sustainable growth and continue to be a key contributor toin supporting ~~recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks~~fight against climate change, socially just transition and recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks, but guided with the strategic approach overall; stresses that all European regions should remain eligible for funding; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period; calls for 50% of climate related spending within the new framework in order to achieve climate objectives set by the Paris Agreement, and in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional growth and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; the existence of multiple cohesion funds, sometimes with overlapping priorities, may hinder the effective implementation of cohesion policy; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main instrument for reducing disparities ~~and stimulating regional growth~~, ensure social, economic, environmental and territorial cohesion, stimulating regional sustainable growth, fight against climate change and poverty and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 88 #

Christian DOLESCHAL, Sabine VERHEYEN, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Ralf SEEKATZ, Daniel CASPARY, Christine SCHNEIDER, Lena DÜPONT, Karolin BRAUNSBERGER-REINHOLD, David McALLISTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2018 on cohesion policy and the circular economy (2017/2211(INI)),

Amendment 90 #

Corina CREȚU, Hannes HEIDE, Matthias ECKE, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Nora MEBAREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, placed-based approach, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main investment instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional growth and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; believes that there must be an increase in real terms of the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 92 #

Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Alin MITUȚA, Mauri PEKKARINEN, Laurence FARRENG, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Irène TOLLERET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that due to its regional focus, strategic planning and effective implementation model , cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main investment instrument for reducing disparities and stimulating regional growth and continue to be a key contributor to supporting recovery from symmetric and asymmetric shocks; calls for a clear demarcation between cohesion policy and other instruments in order to avoid overlaps and competition between EU instruments; believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Emphasises the fast and full support from cohesion policy towards Ukrainian refugees as well towards regions affected hardly by the pandemic; however, underlines that extended flexibility provided by the Commission previously with the CRII and CRII+ regulations and through the CARE and CARE+ proposals on the ESI funds 2014- 2020, together with the RRF funds, undermines the strategic approach of cohesion policy that aims to tackle regional disparities across the EU in a long-run, with dedicated budget for climate and thematic concentration for specific policy objectives; underlines that other EU funds than cohesion policy should be mobilised to respond to unprecedented crisis in an emergency manner, that cohesion policy should not face budgetary cuts in order to respond to crisis and that cohesion policy should be invested to avoid unpreparedness of regions for any challenges that may occur and that way build up resilient and future- proof regions overall in the EU;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Cohesion policy is one of the hallmarks of the European Union by which the European project is recognised in each and every one of the Member States, their regions and municipalities. Many transformative projects, SMEs, entrepreneurs and citizens have been supported by and found an opportunity in the Structural and Investment Funds and have understood them as a tool to increase equal opportunities between territories and to enable citizens across the Union to develop their professional and vital projects freely; we must put the EU's cohesion policy to good use and not allow it to become the commonplace to turn to when the European Commission needs funding for new programmes or projects, however urgent they may be;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that cohesion policy should cover the territories of all Member States and all types of regions; underlines that this is the only way to address regional challenges in order to achieve a more balanced development pattern across the EU and in order to tackle unique regional development problems locally;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Believes that there must be an increase in the overall cohesion budget and in the MFF’s share of the policy compared to the 2021-2027 programming period; acknowledges the reduction in the share of the MFF 2021-2027 dedicated to cohesion, compensated only by NGEU funds;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the overall budget for cohesion policy should be increased, since the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have created new disparities between regions;

Amendment 99 #