Activities of Matthijs van MILTENBURG related to 2014/2245(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Urban dimension of EU policies - Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU (debate) NL
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on ‘Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union’ PDF (266 KB) DOC (231 KB)
Amendments (6)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is justifiable that the goals of cohesion policy have evolved over time and that the policy itself has become more closely linked to the overall policy agenda of the EU; whereas, nevertheless, the original role of cohesion policy – the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion in all EU regions – should be reinforced; whereas cohesion policy ought not to be regarded as mereprincipally an instrument to attain the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and other EU development strategies;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses its serious concern about the significanttructural delays in the implementation of cohesion policy 2014-2020, including the delay incommencing the new cohesion policy planning periods resulting from the late adoption of the Operational Programmes, with only just over 100 Operational Programmes adopted at the end of 2014 by the Commission, as well as a backlog in payments amounting to ca EUR 25 billion for the 2007-2013 programming period; stresses that these delays are undermining the credibility of cohesion policy, effectiveness and sustainability, challenging national, regional and local authorities’ capacity to plan effectively and implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the 2014- 2020 period;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes theIs curious as to the future implications of the proposed new European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) and its potential leverage effect; advises the parties concerned to build on the experiences gained from the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan in 2008, in particular regarding smart investments; calls for the coordination of all EU investment policies – in particular cohesion policy – to ensure complementarity and avoid overlaps; suggests that the implementation of this new EU investment plan build on the experiences of the three joint initiatives JEREMIE, JESSICA and JASMINE, which allowed an increase in the delivery of Structural Funds from EUR 1.2 billion in 2000-2006 to EUR 8.4 billion in 2007- 2012;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the thematic concentration supporting investments in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; maintains, at the same time, the requirement of some flexibility for the regions, depending on local and regional specificities, especially in the context of the severe crisis; calls for a genuinely integrated and territorial approach to target programmes and projects that address the needs on the ground;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that a simplification of management and procedures would also allow for error rates in the implementation of cohesion programmes to be reduced; underlines that these errstresses the need for efforts stem to a considerable degree from legislation outside of cohesion policy, such as public procurement and state aide ruleto minimise administrative burdens for beneficiaries arising from the verifications necessary to ensure proper use of European Structural and Investment Fund appropriations; is concerned about the low rates of disbursement of financial instruments to beneficiaries, in particular in view of the objective to increase the use of these instruments;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes the introduction of new tools to integrate coordination of stakeholders and EU policies, and to focus investments on the real needs on the ground, such as the Integrated Territorial Investments and the Community-Led Local Development instruments; points to the importance of adopting instruments for assessing the territorial impact of policies, the main objective of which is to consider the territorial impact of EU policies on local and regional authorities and to draw greater attention to that impact in the legislative process; calls for an overall integrated EU investment strategy, and a strengthening of the EU Territorial Agenda 2020 that was adopted under the Hungarian Presidency 2011 and that is scheduled to be evaluated by the presidencies of 2015; is of the opinion that particular attention should be paid to strengthening the role of small- and medium-sized urban areas in the framework of an EU Urban Agenda;