Activities of Lambert van NISTELROOIJ related to 2010/2155(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy - Implementation of cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013 - European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy - Objective 3: future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation - Increased effectiveness between ERDF and other structural funds (debate)
Amendments (22)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas territorial cooperation, i.e. cooperation between the inhabitants of different regions, is an ongoing learning process which creates a feeling of community and of having a shared future,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas citizens must be placed at the centre of the priorities of territorial cooperation, and therefore a place-based approach should be advocated,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas closer territorial cooperation is dependent on progress made with European integration and coordination in all fields, and whereasthat contributes to the European integration and territorial cohesion, and that the territorial cooperation is in itself is a testbed for European integration,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced of the European added value of territorial cooperation and the key role it plays in deepening the internal market and fostering closer European integration; in several sectoral policies, and calls for territorial cooperation to remain one of the pillars of cohesion policy;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that territorial cooperation has proved its effectiveness and that its potential as a source of competitiveness has so far been insufficiently tapped as a result of the inadequate resources allocated to it; calls for the budget for the ‘territorial cooperation’ objective to be at least 57% of the overall cohesion policy budget for the next programming period;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that a distinction should continue to be made between the cross- border component, which meets the local needs of cross-border population catchment areas, and the transnational component, including the so-called macroregional scale, which facilitates cooperation over wider strategic areas;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls nonetheless – with a view to ensuring the coherence and continuity of territorial cooperation measures and given the strategic nature of the projects in question – for greater flexibility in exploiting the scope offered by Article 21 of the ERDF Regulation with regard to the location of cross-border and transnational cooperation activities; to that end, calls for a reviewcertain flexibility to be implemented in the application of the geographical limit of 150 km set for cross-border cooperation programmes for coastal and maritime regions;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for funds for territorial cooperation no longer to be allocated by Member State, but at EU level and on a programme-by-programme basis, on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex 2, paragraph 5 of the basic regulationto be allocated for each programme of territorial cooperation on the basis of harmonised criteria so as to provide a strategic, integrated response to the needs of each territory or area involved; invites in this respect the Commission to consider other relevant, strategic and measurable criteria that could reflect the needs of territories and reduceweight the demphasis on the most important criterion: demographyography criteria;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses once again the importance of interregional cooperation, but deplores the lack of funds allocated to it; calls for a reduction from 75% to 60% in the Community cofinancing rate of this programme for participants from the regions covered by the ‘competitiveness and employment’ objective, encourages regions to make better use of the scope for interregional cooperation offered by Article 37(6)(b) of the basic regulation in order to raise the number projects in this objective; advocates, therefore, that the ‘interregional’ component of Objective 3 should also be used to facilitate the coordination and running of such projects, to pool know-how and to exchange good practices, on the basis of ever closer cooperation with, and; stresses for the future operational programmes the need to acquire the support of, INTERACT and the capacity for successful assistance schemes, which are to be modelled after the RC LACE project;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Invites the Commission to look into ways of involving local and regional councillors in these Europe-wide networks for the exchange of experiences and good pracmplementing the Erasmus pilot project for local and regional elected representaticves;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that greater complementarity betweenthe mainstreaming of the ‘territorial cooperation’ objective, on the one hand, and with the ‘convergence’ and ‘competitiveness and employment’ objectives, on the other, is needed; suggests that regional operational programmes should participate in the cross-border and transnational projects that concern them by earmarking funding by territory for priority projects identified in advance and agreed with their partners in the programmes, in accordance with the principles of multi-level governance and the partnership; calls for the programming to be better co-ordinated than it has been before;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that the concept of macro- regions, a Council initiative, came into being as an experimental, logical way of coordinating common projects covering a very large territory, with a view to exploitingmaking use of the advantages of an integrated and multisectoral approach based on common strategic actions receiving support from existing funds; points out that these strategies must neither generate additional expenditure fornew funds in the EU budget, nor necessitate the establishment of new institutions or the application of new ruleslegislation;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Points out that the Territorial Co- operation Objective can accommodate the co-operation on a macroregional scale, especially within its transnational strand;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Asks the Commission to conduct an in- depth study of the results of the first strategies implemented; believes that the process has met with a level of interest that should be built on; advocates the use of transnational programmes to support these territorial strategies by coordinating the work of devising, framing and steering current and future macro-regional strategies;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Advocates, therefore, more effective coordination between the various Commission directorates-general concernedStates that the conditions for cross- border co-operation in the ENPI are not sufficient for its appropriate development; advocates, therefore, more effective coordination between the various Commission directorates-general concerned; is convinced of the ultimate necessity to reintegrate the ENPI cross- border co-operation programmes into the Territorial Co-operation Objective of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – indent 1
Paragraph 21 – indent 1
– clarifying the status of EGTCs under national legal systemsthe legal systems of the Member States in order to achieve an appropriate legal alignment in this respect,
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the allocation of global grants to EGTCs in order to enable them to directly manage Structural Fund appropriations, and programmes, as well as for the multinational and multilateral nature of EGTCs to be better reflected in regulations governing the other European funds, with a view to improving their access to other sources of financing;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes that the implementation of territorial cooperation programmes remains overly complicated and considers that Objective 3 needs specially adapa separated rulesegulation;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Invites the Commission to propose specific measures which simplify rules on auditing and control, with "one management authority per programme" as a guiding principle, authorise more systematic standard-rate costing, lay down more detailed rules on eligibility for EU funding, make for greater flexibility in the implementation of automatic decommitments, raise the acceptable error rate to 5% and increase technical assistance to 8%, with a view to ensuring that the management bodies concentrate more on the strategic management of projects, rather than whether applications comply with administrative rules;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses, furthermore, that arrangements for involving private stakeholders must also bebe broadened and simplified; recommends setting up financial engineering systems, along the lines of the JEREMIE and JESSICA initiatives, to facilitate cross-border projects which generate revenue, the participation of private stakeholders and the establishment of public-private partnerships;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that, by contributing to helping to fulfil the Europe 2020 strategy's objective of intelligent and inclusive growth, cooperation on education and culture would raise the level of participation of citizens and NGOs as well as to contribute to the raising of the profile of territorial cooperation ands well as to breaking down the ‘mental borders’ that still set citizens apart from one another;