31 Amendments of Marcos ROS SEMPERE related to 2023/2121(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)
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 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
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 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas it is at territorial level, where the challenges facing European regions are identified and managed;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
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 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas the Territorial Agenda is the guiding instrument for the European Union’s territorial policy
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
A d. Whereas the European Urban Agenda, through the Leipzig Charter, supports the objectives of the Territorial Agenda 2030;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
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 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that cohesion investments should remain under shared management for programming and implementation in order to cater for local needs ofbe 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 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underscores that the cohesion policy budget should not be usedbe 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 levelby the managing authorities of the programmes;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
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 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
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 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
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 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
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 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Local and regional focus
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 eventconditions), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other eventnatural disasters;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
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 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for cohesion policy to include a stronger urban dimensiona 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 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls forIs of the opinion that the use of cohesion decommitments for thematic concentration on local infrastructure and for reserve margins within cohesion policy that willwould help, inter alia, to absorb future inflationary hikes or supply chain shocks; believes that the mechanismis use should operate on a rolling basis based on necessity and following the multiannual and annual decommitment cycles;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
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 openot only be in line with EU policies, but also embratce in practical termthe 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 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls foron 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 shifthe assessment 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 policyuch as metropolitan areas, in the case of such an approach;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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, includingincluding 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 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
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 municipalitiebudgetary 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 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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; sStresses 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 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
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 greenCalls 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 investal cooperation and help address common challenges, fostering partnerships and promoting economic developments, instead of fragmentation and lack of synergiessocial cohesion and environmental sustainability;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls foron the creation of a mechanism for the early detection of red tape and actions in breach of or notCommission, Member States, regions and local authorities to rigorously and effectively applying the multi- level governance principle; callasks for the inclusion of the partnership principle in the European Semester; icalls convinced that the Commission and the ECA should have the right toto scrupulously conduct follow-ups, perform checks and make corrective recommendations;